Appeal No. 95-2925
Application 08/162,820
displaying warning signals as they occur, with no regard as to their relative importance.
Pomerantz selects one parameter warning signal, that which represents the highest warning level
at any given time. This is evident from the fact that at column 3, lines 62-68, and column 4, lines
53-58, the message display system is disclosed as effective to display a message to a vehicle
operator corresponding only to the highest priority event (warning) when a plurality of events
occur concurrently. A second, serious condition of the engine would not be displayed
sequentially to the operator. The condition would apparently go unannounced to the operator
until the more serious highest priority event is cured.
We do not agree with the examiner’s position with respect to Woodell and Pomerantz
that,
“… it would have been obvious to group these sensed parameter signals
together as one group and displaying these sensed parameter signals with the same
highest warning levels first since it requires immediate action by the operator.”
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the examiner does
not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Although the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the examiner, the suggestion
to modify the combined teachings of the two references is from the examiner, not the prior art.
Woodell and Pomerantz fail to suggest any motivation for, or desirability of, the changes
espoused by the examiner. The fact that the invention of Woodell could, by chance,
simultaneously give two or more warning signals as to diverse but serious engine conditions (i.e.,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007