Ex parte AIHARA - Page 2




               Appeal No. 1997-1873                                                                                                  
               Application 08/300,855                                                                                                




                       The invention relates to a method for judging whether or not an engine is in a steady state                   

               operation during which the monitoring for diagnosis is performed.                                                     

                       Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:                                                                 

                       1.  A method of judging a steady state operation of an engine by monitoring at least one engine               
               parameter for a predetermined period of monitoring, comprising:                                                       

                       turning on an ignition switch and starting said engine;                                                       

                       detecting an engine parameter;                                                                                

                       memorizing an initial value of said engine parameter at the start of said period of monitoring;               

                       calculating a difference between said initial value of said engine parameter and said detected                
               engine parameter;                                                                                                     

                       discontinuing monitoring if said difference is outside of a predetermined restriction width before            
               the end of said period of monitoring; and                                                                             

                       judging that said engine is in a steady state operation if said difference is within a predetermined          
               restriction width at the end of said period of monitoring.                                                            

                       The Examiner relies on the following references:                                                              

               Kay et al. (Kay)                               4,691,288               Sept.   1, 1987                                
               Matsuno                                        5,297,047               Mar. 22, 1994                                  
                                                                              (filed July 5, 1991)                                   

                       The Appellant's specification is objected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112,  first paragraph for failing              

               to provide an enabling disclosure of a diagnosis method.                                                              


                                                                 2                                                                   





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007