Appeal No. 95-3175
Application 08/124,361
as claimed, stating (Examiner's Answer, page 8):
It is not clear to the examiner how the "calibration system" (lines 21-25) is meant to fit within the
context of a "computerized information processing system" (line 1) as a whole. . . . [T]he examiner
referred to the specification (pages 15-17) for clarification on the claimed "calibration system".
However, the description found merely describes a "calibration procedure" (page 15, paragraph 1,
lines 5-6) from which the examiner cannot discern how the description comprises a "calibration
system."
The examiner apparently misses the detailed description of the calibration procedure, as performed with
the microcomputer attached to a mileage sensor on the vehicle and the vehicle odometer, at page 16, last
paragraph, of the specification. The claimed "calibration system" is not indefinite in view of the
specification. The "calibration system" is one subsystem of the overall "information processing system."
For these reasons, the rejection of claims 15-19, 26-27, and 31 is reversed.
35 U.S.C. § 103
The examiner's obviousness conclusion is based on an erroneous factual finding regarding the
content of Webb and must be reversed.
Webb states (column 1, lines 62-63): "Mileage data can be entered using a direct mileage input
or an odometer entry." This supports the examiner's finding that (Final Rejection, page 3; Examiner's
Answer, page 4): "Webb et al. teach that the mileage data can be entered using a direct mileage input in
column 1, lines 62-63." However, the examiner erroneously finds "direct mileage input" to mean
"automatically inputting information" from a mileage sensor of the vehicle and that Webb just fails to
describe a mileage sensor. Both entry methods in Webb involve manual entry of mileage or odometer
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007