Appeal No. 2004-1495 Page 8
Application No. 09/526,631
Spillman evidences that it was known in the art at the time of appellant’s
invention to embed strain sensors in smart structures. As pointed out by appellant
(brief, page 6), however, Spillman’s teachings are directed to wireless systems with
capability to sense, process and receive data from embedded structures without direct
physical connection between the structures and a data collection and powering interface
and are not specifically directed to tools, molds or dies.
For the above reasons, we conclude that the teachings of Arai, Prinz and
Spillman are insufficient to have suggested the inclusion of strain sensors in Arai’s
molding device. It follows that we shall not sustain the rejection of claims 7-9 as being
unpatentable over Arai in view of Prinz and Spillman.
Rejection (4)
Claim 11, like claims 7-9, requires a plurality of integrated sensors each
outputting an electrical signal which is a function of strain. For the reasons discussed
above with regard to claims 7-9, we find no suggestion in the applied references to
include strain sensors in Arai’s molding device. We thus shall not sustain the rejection
of claim 11 as being unpatentable over Arai in view of Prinz, Moore and Spillman.
Rejection (5)
Moore discloses a method of fabricating a product using a die casting machine
comprising thermocouples 112, 114 outputting an electrical signal indicative of
temperature. Moore does not disclose providing a computer database describing the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007