Appeal No. 2004-2295
Application No. 09/628,396
examiner was given the opportunity to further support the
anticipation conclusion with findings of fact and technical
reasoning vis-a-vis the applied Zhang patent. As we see it, the
Supplemental Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 22) simply fails to
provide sound evidentiary support for a conclusion of
anticipation. As is evident to us from appellant's independent
claims, supra, they respectively require a map signature of a
signal or mapping a signal. On the other hand, a review of the
Zhang patent (column 13, lines 10 through 38) reveals to this
panel of the Board that one skilled in this art would not
perceive signal mapping for an object detection system, moveable
closure assembly, or method, as now claimed. Instead, we
comprehend Zhang as teaching an obstruction detection apparatus
for a vehicle window that would be understood to provide a
controller that simply compares a value of t (length of a
detection pulse) to a value of T' (an initialization value
related to the length of a detection pulse when a window is free
of obstructions), with T', more particularly, being generated
(column 13, lines 25 through 30) as a function of the value of T,
an average value of t while a window is being closed. Thus, the
signal mapping of appellant's claims does not read on the Zhang
disclosure. As to the Trett reference applied by the examiner in
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007