Appeal No. 2005-1862 Page 5
Application No. 09/799,088
In the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 5 and 9 before us in this appeal
(answer, pp. 3-4), the examiner (1) set forth the pertinent teachings of Swindall and
Desmarais; (2) ascertained1 that Swindall does not disclose the gyroscope is a Iaser
ring gyroscope (LRG); and (3) concluded that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use the LRG of Desmarais
in the invention of Swindall because it would make the invention of Swindall more
accurate and decrease the size and weight as stated on lines 27-28, on column 1, of
Desmarais.
We have reviewed the entire disclosure of Swindall and conclude that the
examiner did not correctly ascertain the differences between Swindall and claims 1, 5
and 9. Based on our analysis and review of Swindall and claims 1, 5 and 9, it is our
opinion that the differences include the following: (1) Swindall does not disclose the
gyroscope is a Iaser ring gyroscope; and (2) Swindall does not disclose determining the
slope of the pavement by comparing the vehicle roll determined from height measuring
devices with the slope of the vehicle determined from the gyroscope.
1After the scope and content of the prior art are determined, the differences
between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007