Appeal 2007-1916
Application 10/753,113
the vibration sensor. Because Hollis fails to disclose each limitation of
independent claims 3, 6, and 8, it also fails to anticipate dependent claims 4, 5, 7,
and 9.
The Examiner also improperly rejected claim 5 as unpatentable over Hollis
under § 103(a). Examiner asserts that:
Hollis discloses the claimed invention except for
explicitly stating the claimed circuit connectors per se;
for example, high impedance, driver, resistors,
transistors, etc. It would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to implement these various connectors, since
these are well known in the electronics art and since it
has been held that rearranging parts of an invention
involves only routine skill in the art. In re Japiske, 86
USPQ 70.
(Answer 4). The Examiner is incorrect because Hollis fails to disclose a controller
or control circuitry that produces aversive stimulus control signals in response to
the combination of a neck motion detection signal and signals from a vibration
sensor as required by claim 3, the independent claim from which claim 5 depends.
Examiner has provided no reference showing such a controller, nor has he made a
prima facie case of obviousness over Hollis.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3-9 under 35
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013