Appeal 2007-1344
Application 10/045,789
engine cylinders, but does not teach algorithmically processing the plurality of bit
positions in the version coding to select a control parameter (Finding of Fact 6).
The Examiner misreads Gormley, which he relies on to provide the missing
limitation. Gormley teaches storing a variety of preferences for a plurality of
operators and configuring the operating characteristics of the vehicle in response to
the identified operator and his or her desires and requirements. (Finding of Fact
7). This addresses adjustment of the performance of a single vehicle version to suit
multiple operators. It does not disclose indirect selection of a control parameter by
algorithmic processing of values of a plurality of bit positions of the version
coding. Because the combination of references lacks the limitation of selection of
control parameters by algorithmic processing of values of a plurality of bit
positions of the version coding which is present in all of the claims, and because
the Examiner provides no explanation why such a limitation would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, the Examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. We therefore reverse the obviousness rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-11.
B. Rejection of claims 6 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the Manual in view of Gormley, and further in view of Becker.
Claims 6 and 12 depend ultimately from claims 1 and 7, respectively, and
contain each of their respective limitations. As discussed above the combination of
the Manual with Gormley fails to disclose selection of control parameters by
algorithmic processing of values of a plurality of bit positions of the version coding
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013