Appeal No. 2006-0022 Παγε 19
Application No. 09/810,943
the sample rates for the weight sensor is preset to be relatively low. In our view, this
teaching is not suggestive of approximately every thirty milliseconds.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 62,
64 and 70 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claims 63, 71 and 72
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 63, 71 and 72.
Appellants argue (brief, pp. 23-24) that the applied prior art does not teach or
suggest a controller which determines the weight by computing a biased average of
each of the sensors over time and summing all of the biased averages together to
obtain a total weight. We agree. The applied prior art does not teach or suggest
computing a biased average of each of the sensors as set forth in these claims.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 63,
71 and 72 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007