Appeal 2007-1916
Application 10/753,113
to enable the controller to produce the aversive stimulus control signals” as used by
the Appellants in claim 3. The Specification makes clear that the claim language
“operative in response to the neck motion detection signal and signals from the
vibration sensor to enable the controller to produce the aversive stimulus control
signals” means that the claimed controller is operative in response to the
combination of the neck motion signal and signals from the vibration sensor to
enable the controller to produce the aversive stimulus control signals (Finding of
Fact 6). We find this to be the broadest reasonable construction in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art.
Based on this claim construction, the rejection of claims 3-9 as anticipated
by Hollis is improper, because Hollis does not disclose each and every limitation
as set forth in claims 3-9, either expressly or inherently. In particular, Hollis fails
to anticipate independent claim 3, because it does not does not teach a controller
that produces aversive stimulus control signals in response to the combination of a
neck motion detection signal and signals from a vibration sensor (Finding of Fact
5). Hollis similarly does not anticipate independent claim 6, because it does not
disclose control circuitry that produces aversive stimulus control signals in
response to the signals produced by the vibration sensor if a motion detection
signal is received concurrently with the signals produced by the vibration sensor.
Independent claim 8 also is improperly rejected as anticipated by Hollis, because
Hollis fails to teach means for operating control circuitry that produces aversive
stimulus control signals in response to the signals produced by the vibration sensor
if a motion detection signal is received concurrently with the signals produced by
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013