Appeal No. 2000-1961
Application 08/840,200
operating characteristics" of the monitored mechanism "caused by
changes in the environment of the mechanism."
We find no suggestion in Hill, Hale, Arcella, or McDonald of
making changes to the baseline data as claimed. The examiner's
conclusion that it would have been obvious to modify the baseline
data set is based on made-up reasons, not any factual teachings
or suggestion in the references. We conclude that the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to claim 20. The rejection of claim 20 is reversed.
Claims 1, 5-7, and 11: Hill or Hale or Arcella
Claim 1 recites a "self-contained" system for analyzing the
online operation of a monitored mechanism and having "a housing
for assembling said system in a unitary assembly in operative
communication with said mechanism."
The examiner states that although none of Hill or Hale or
Arcella clearly disclose "a housing for assembling said system in
a unitary assembly in operative communication with said
mechanism," it would have been obvious "that a housing would be
needed to protect the sensitive electronic components and that by
having the system in a unitary assembly such a system would be
more compact resulting in greater economy of space and that such
a system in the housing must be in communication with the
- 19 -
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007