Appeal No. 95-3175
Application 08/124,361
readings by an operator via a keyboard as shown in figure 4B, steps 61 and 62 (entering odometer reading)
and steps 67 and 68 (entering mileage directly), and described at column 4, line 57, to column 5, line 20.
Since Webb does not suggest "automatically inputting information" from a mileage sensor of the vehicle,
and Eshelman does not suggest inputting the sensor output to a mileage recording device as claimed, the
examiner fails to provide the requisite motivation to combine the sensor teaching of Eshelman with the
computer system of Webb. For this reason, the rejection of claims 15-19, 26-27, and 31 is reversed.
The examiner also concludes, based on the erroneous finding that Webb discloses "automatically
inputting information" from a mileage sensor of the vehicle, that (Final Rejection, pages 4-5; Examiner's
Answer, pages 5-6):
Furthermore, calibration of the system of Webb et al. at the time of installation, although not
disclosed in Webb et al., is inherently necessary in the system of Webb et al. since the generated
reports of Webb et al. would not correspond to the correct mileage. For instance, if the system
were installed at a vehicle mileage of 10,000 miles and not calibrated then the reports would be
generated staring [sic] at 0 miles. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention would
thus have found it obvious to calibrate the system to the odometer because it would eliminate this
discrepancy.
Because Webb does not disclose "automatically inputting information" from a mileage sensor of the vehicle
and, because Webb involves manual input of mileage and odometer readings, there is no reason to provide
a calibration system in Webb. Webb just accepts the inputs from the operator. The rejection of claims 15-
19, 26-27, and 31 is also reversed for this reason.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007