Appeal 2007-1838
Application 10/118,523
recited in the claims (Reply Br. 5-6). We disagree and find that both
portions of Cook relate to using the relative ratio of pulse intervals to
determine that the force imparted by the motor has exceeded a force
threshold and therefore, an obstacle has been encountered (FF 8-10).
Therefore, we find that Cook anticipates the subject matter of claims 13 and
16 as Appellant has failed to show any errors in the Examiner’s position.
Turning now to the rejection of claims 14 and 15, we note Appellant’s
arguments that Cook’s learned value (col. 6, ll. 15-33) is not a force
threshold value (Br. 11; Reply Br. 7). Although the Examiner has not
specifically pointed to a force threshold value in Cook that is determined
during a learning mode or from memory (Answer 5-6), we find that the
portions relied on by the Examiner are reasonably related to the claimed
features. Additionally, by way of embellishing upon the Examiner’ analysis,
we find that the door system of Cook does provide for determining the
characteristics of the door during a learning mode (FF 12) such that motion
characteristics of the door are learned. Among these characteristics are
those described by Cook in subsequent passages such as door position and
pulse intervals which are indicative of the close and open positions of the
door (FF 11) as well as other characteristics such as the force imparted by
the motor (FF 9) or the force threshold value. Additionally, we find that the
predetermined value of 100 Newtons (FF 10) defines a value that is stored
and may be obtained from memory, as recited in claim 15. Thus, we find no
error in the Examiner’s position finding claims 14 and 15 anticipated by
Cook.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013