Appeal 2007-0818
Application 10/601,448
1 below a second predetermined threshold, where the second threshold is less than
2 the first threshold. Independent claims 33 and 44 contain similar limitations.
3 As discussed supra, we do not find that Shono teaches the claimed second
4 threshold. Contrary to the Examiner’s assertions, Shono teaches that the leveling
5 is suspended when the acceleration is above the value G2 and resumed when the
6 acceleration is equal to or less the value of G2. Nor do we find that adding a
7 second threshold is a question of determining optimum values. The selection of a
8 value for the threshold G2 might be a determination of an optimum value.
9 However, in this case, the difference between the prior art and the invention is
10 more than the value used for G2; it is establishing two threshold values to make a
11 determination where one is used in the prior art. Further, as discussed supra we do
12 not find that Raad teaches using a second threshold value to determine if leveling
13 is to be resumed. Thus, we do not find that the combination of Shono and Raad
14 teach all of the limitations of the independent claims 24, 33, and 44.
15
16 CONCLUSION
17 We consider the Examiner’s rejection of 24 through 27, and 29 through 46
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) to be in error as we do not find that the combination of
19 Shono in view of Raad teaches or suggests the limitations in independent claims
20 24, 33, and 44. The Examiner has not asserted, nor do we find that Karnopp, the
21 reference applied against dependent claim 28, makes up for the noted deficiencies
22 in the rejection of independent claims 24, 33, and 44. Accordingly we will not
23 sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) of claims 24 through
24 46.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013