Appeal No. 2003-1869
Application 09/622,092
equivalent, and one and the same” (answer, page 3). According to
the examiner:
Appellant’s [sic, Appellants’] assertion that the
characteristic diagram [recited in the appealed claims]
and the invertible mathematical function of the prior
art are separate and distinct is just not convincing.
If a motor vehicle controller contains a characteristic
diagram it is actually the mathematical description of
the diagram, i.e. the mathematical function or
equation. You can’t actually store a diagram in a
controller, per se, it needs to be described by
mathematical terms [answer, page 5].
Arguably, the examiner’s contention that characteristic
diagrams of the sort recited in the appealed claims are stored in
a mathematical context is, in a general sense, well taken. The
examiner has not provided any evidence, however, to support the
rather dubious proposition that all stored mathematical models
involving three variables represent to characteristic diagrams
stored in an X,Y,Z cartesian coordinate system. While
Mergenthaler does disclose the use of stored inverse mathematical
models to obtain a vehicle sensor reference variable which is a
function of two other variables, the examiner has failed to
cogently explain, and it is not apparent, how or why this
reference teaches that such mathematical models embody
mathematically invertible characteristic diagrams stored via
support points in an X,Y,Z cartesian coordinate system and used
in a reverse interpolation step as recited in independent claims
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007