Appeal No. 1998-2864
Application No. 08/338,235
Appellant responds by alleging that one skilled in the art
of monitoring parameters of a ship, upon considering how to
remotely monitor such parameters from various locations within
the ship, would not have considered Kobayashi’s motor vehicle
system because the portable diagnosis device 25 of Kobayashi’s
diagnostic system is coupled to a motor vehicle engine electronic
control system 2 by a harness 27 and thereby used only within the
immediate vicinity of the motor vehicle engine.
We will sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
103 as it appears reasonable to us that the artisan, having the
automotive monitoring/diagnostic system of Kobayashi before
him/her, would clearly have been led to employ such a system in
other environments, especially to other vehicle environments,
such as a ship. The claim specifies no language which would make
the claimed invention especially adapted to ship monitoring
systems but unworkable for other vehicle environments because of
something unique to ships. Accordingly, we agree with the
examiner’s rationale that this claim limitation is directed
solely to intended use.
We also will sustain the rejection of claim 17 under
35 U.S.C. 103 because we view the claim broadly as requiring only
a means for producing an alarm (the display of Kobayashi will
-15–
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007