Appeal No. 2007-0067
Application No. 10/202,097
Appellant also contends that the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 2 through 4 and 7 through 9, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is in error for
the reasons asserted with respect to the rejection of claim 1. Further,
Appellant argues that the combination of Kawabe and Kawasaki does not
teach the claimed step where reference position learning ends when a
positioning object has not reached the reference position within a
predetermined period of time.
The Examiner contends that claims 1, 5, 6 and 10 are properly
rejected under either 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) and 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). The
Examiner states on pages 6 and 7 of the Answer that Kawabe teaches a
system which adjusts speed, based upon position and that as such teaches
both a position and speed control apparatus. Further, on page 4 of the
Answer, the Examiner states that Kawabe’s second position, X2, is
considered to be a learned position of the object.
The Examiner also contends that the rejection of claims 2 through 4
and 7 through 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is proper. The examiner states
that Kawasaki teaches a poppet valve control system which updates the
position of the valve if the detected displacement does not correspond to the
actual displacement within a set period of time.
Thus, this case presents two issues:
The first issue for us to consider is does the Kawabe teach or suggest
the claimed steps which relate to learning a target position from a temporary
target position?
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013