Appeal 2007-2682
Application 10/326,410
Sarangapani’s Figure 5 do not show instantaneous stress applied to the
component as is recited in the claims.
Secondly, the Examiner has read required features entirely out of the
claims. Applicants’ claims 24 and 34 do not simply recite a broad step of
sensing a machine property which indicates instantaneous stress applied to
the machine component based on the sensed property. Rather, there has to
be data structure which determines a damage factor indicative of the
instantaneous stress and a particular step for processing that data to
determine the damage factor. In regarding sensed property as itself a
damage factor indicative of instantaneous stress, the Examiner has failed to
account for the processing step explicitly required by the claims. That
processing step cannot be ignored or read out of the claims. In the context
of the Applicants’ claims, the sensed property, when stored as data, cannot
also be the damage factor determined from stored data in a processing step.
Claim 26 depends from claim 24. Claims 35-38 each depend from
claim 34. The dependent claims include all the limitations of the
independent claim on which they depend.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 24, 26, and 34-38 as
anticipated by Sarangapani cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 24, 26 and 34-38 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Sarangapani is reversed.
REVERSED
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013