Ex Parte Colosky - Page 6





               Appeal No. 2006-2240                                                                                               
               Application No. 10/232,015                                                                                         

               not compatible with Larkin’s device.  We are not however persuaded by this argument.  Ng                           
               teaches a torque sensor where the output is compensated for misalignments.  We consider that                       
               one skilled in the art would recognize that the output of Ng’s sensor, not the individual contact                  
               tracts, would be input into Larkin’s system.  Whether the contact tracts generate signals of                       
               opposite polarity is of no matter, it is the output of the sensor, which is input into Larkin.  The                
               combination is using multiple of Ng’s torque sensors (i.e. redundant sensors) to provide signals                   
               to Larkin’s monitoring system.  Thus, we do not find that the combination destroys the purpose                     
               of the references as asserted by appellant.   Accordingly, we are not persuaded of an error in the                 
               examiner’s determination of obviousness and sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1.                           
                      As appellant has not presented arguments asserting that claims 2, 3, 5 through 7, 11                        
               through 19, 21, 22, 23 and 28 through 36 are separately patentable from claim 1, we sustain the                    
               examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5 through 7, 11 through 19, 21, 22, 23 and 28 through 36 for                  
               the reasons stated with respect to claim 1.                                                                        

                           Rejection of claims 8 through 10, and 24 through 27  under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                            
                      Appellant argues, on page 7 of the brief: “neither Larkin or Ng teach or suggest the                        
               limitations of ‘said selecting is responsive to a signal selection and hysteresis process.’”                       
                      The examiner responds, on page 7 of the answer: “Larkin et al discloses a process (e.g.                     
               fuzzy logic or weighted function) for selecting a pair of parameter signals from a plurality of                    
               parameter pair signals.  The selection process is based on some prescribed rules or conditions.                    
               See columns 3, 5 and 7.”                                                                                           
                      We disagree with the examiner.  Dependent claim 8 recites, “wherein said selecting is                       
               responsive to signal selection and hysteresis process.”  Claim 24 contains a similar limitation.                   
               Claims 9 and 25 are dependent upon claims 8 and 24 respectively.   Claims 10 and 26, each                          




                                                                6                                                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007