Appeal No. 1997-1071
Application No. 08/350,119
Claims 1, 2, and 5 through 15 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Maddock in view of
Akase.2
Reference is made to the Examiner's Answer (Paper No. 15,
mailed October 7, 1996) and the Supplemental Examiner's Answer
(Paper No. 19, mailed April 4, 1997) for the examiner's
complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the
appellants' Brief (Paper No. 14, filed August 26, 1996) for
the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the claims, the applied
prior art references, and the respective positions articulated
by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims
1, 2, 5 through 7, and 9 through 15 and affirm the obviousness
rejection of claim 8.
All of the claims except claim 8 recite correcting the
threshold level based on the combustion state parameters. In
In the Examiner's Answer, the examiner withdrew the rejection of2
claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. In the Supplemental
Examiner's Answer, the examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 12 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Therefore, only the rejection of claims 1, 2,
and 5 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is before us on appeal.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007