Ex Parte Maresca et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 4, 2002

08677380 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 4, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte ROBERT L. MARESCA and THOMAS L. AHO
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0261
Application No. 08/677,380
____________
HEARD: March 5, 2002
____________
Before FLEMING, LALL, and SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judges.
LALL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the Examiner's final rejection , of claims 1-6, 9-11, 14, 15,1 2
17, 18 and 22. Claims 7, 12, 13, 16, 19, 23 and 24 have been
objected to and claims 25-30 have been indicated as allowed.
Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
The disclosed invention is directed to motion controlling
apparatus including a combining network, having an acceleration
input for receiving an acceleration signal representative
of acceleration of a movable element, from an accelerometer, and
a position input for receiving a position signal representative
of the position of the movable element, and an output for
providing an inferred position signal representative of an
inferred position of the movable element. The combining network
includes a signal processor for processing the acceleration
signal to provide a modified acceleration signal, a second signal
processor for processing the position signal to provide a
modified position signal, and a combiner for additively combining
the modified acceleration signal with the modified position
signal to provide the inferred position signal. The first signal
processor may comprise a low pass filter, but may include a
velocity terminal for providing a velocity signal representative
of the velocity of the movable element. There may be a second
low pass filter for filtering the position signal to provide the
Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
Further understanding of the invention can be achieved by
the following claim.
1. Motion controlling apparatus comprising,
a combining network having an acceleration input for
receiving an acceleration signal representative of acceleration
of a movable element and a position input for receiving a
position signal representative of position of said movable
element and an output for providing an inferred position signal
representative of an inferred position of said movable element,
said network including a first signal processor for
processing said acceleration signal to provide a modified
acceleration signal,
a second signal processor for processing said position
signal to provide a modified position signal,
a combiner for additively combining said modified
acceleration signal with said modified position signal to provide
said inferred position signal.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Ell et al. (Ell) 4,691,152 Sep. 1, 1987
Neal 3,648,031 Mar. 7, 1972
Claim 1 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Ell.
Claim 1-6, 9-11, 14, 15 and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Neal.
Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for their
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the Examiner
and the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
Appellants’ arguments set forth in the brief.
We affirm-in-part.
We consider the various groups of claims rejected under
three different sets of references.
Ell
In response to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 (final rejection at page 2), Appellants argue, (brief at
page 6) that “[t]he current on line 30 [in Ell] is not the
acceleration signal representative of the acceleration of a
movable element disclosed and claimed in this application.”
Appellants further argue (id.) that “[t]he reference [Ell] does
Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
for by claim 1.” However, we agree with the Examiner (answer at
page 6) that current at line 30 indeed is a signal representative
of acceleration (figure 2 of Ell) and that node 45 serves as a
combining network for the modified acceleration signal (the
signal at 30 modified having gone through integrator 31 and
network 33) and the measured position signal at line 39 (modified
having gone through element 42 in figure 3). Both these signals
end up at combining node 45.
A prior art reference anticipates the subject of a claim
when the reference discloses every feature of the claimed
invention, either explicitly or inherently, See Hazani v. Int'l
Trade Comm'n, 126 F.3d 1473, 1477, 44 USPQ2d 1358, 1361 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) and RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730
F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In this case, Ell shows every element of claim 1 as required
by the anticipatory rejection as discussed above. Therefore, we
sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 1 by Ell.
Neal
Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
modified acceleration signal with the modified position signal to
provide the inferred position signal, or provide ‘the noise-free
position and rate output signal.” The Examiner responds, answer
at page 7, that “[N]eal discloses in figure 2 a position signal
that is filtered at element 29, and discloses an acceleration
that is filtered at element 37. These signals are further
processed by a gain 31 and an adder 34 and these modified signals
are provided to the adder 33. Both signals are modified. Both
signals are combined.” We agree with the Examiner in as far as
that the modified position signal and the modified acceleration
signal do reach adder 33 and are being combined at 33. However,
we cannot determine for sure the output of adder 33 in view of
the conflicting disclosure in Neal. Thus, figure 2 itself
seems to indicate that the output 36 (Yo) would be an indication
of the position of the element being moved. However, Neal at
column 3, lines 12 and 13, states, “output [of] adder 33 ...
[comprises] the noisefree position and rate output signal ....”
(emphasis added). Here, we have to agree with Appellants
Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
that Neal anticipates claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claim 1, and also independent claims 9
and 14 since each contains similar recitation. The rejection
of the dependent claims 2-6, 10, 11, 15 and 22 is also not
sustained.
Neal in view of Ell
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected as being obvious over Neal in
view of Ell, see final rejection at page 3. We note that claim
17 has the same recited elements as claim 1 and further claims a
movable element and a mover responsive to said control signal
for moving said movable element. Since Ell does not cure the
deficiency noted above in Neal regarding the recited language of
claim 1 which is also found in claim 17, we do not sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 17, and its dependent claim 18
over Neal in view of Ell.
In summary, we have sustained the anticipation rejection of
claim 1 by Ell; we have not sustained the anticipation rejection
Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
of claims 1-6, 9-11, 14, 15 and 22 by Neal; and we have not
sustained the obviousness rejection of claims 17 and 18 over Neal
in view of Ell.
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
PARSHOTAM S. LALL ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1999-1543
Application No. 08/456,762
CHARLES HIEKEN
FISH & RICHARDSON
225 FRANKLIN STREET
BOSTON, MA 02110-2804