Appeal No. 2006-1920
Application No. 10/846,504
answer (mailed January 11, 2006) for the reasoning in support of the rejection, and to
appellants’ brief (filed October 13, 2005) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied prior art reference, and to the
respective positions articulated by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations that follow.
Claims 1, 2, 9, 19, 20, 33 and 34 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Magiawala.
We note that the appellants argue these claims as a group. Accordingly, we select
claim 1 as representative of the group. In particular, the appellants urge that
The appellants argue that Magiawala measures and uses acceleration, not speed.
More particularly, the appellants urge that
The Magiawala et al reference does not detect or utilize any
measurement information regarding rotational wheel speed, for any
purpose at all. Rather, as noted at Column 5, lines 32-35, “The present
invention is based on Applicants' finding that the radial and/or lateral
acceleration of the wheel or tire can be used to provide information
regarding tread wear, shock absorber performance, balance condition
and/or wheel rotation speed.'' [See Brief at p. 7].
The examiner responds that acceleration is a derivative of speed and therefore
measuring acceleration inherently measures speed. More specifically,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007