Appeal No. 95-4609
Application 08/263,903
comparing the predicted values to threshold values and
raising an alarm if any predicted value exceeds a corresponding
threshold value.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Downes et al. (Downes) 4,769,761 Sep. 06, 1988
Filkin 5,046,020 Sep. 03, 1991
Chinnaswamy et al. 5,062,055 Oct. 29, 1991
(Chinnaswamy)
Bell et al. (Bell) 5,223,827 June 29, 1993
(filed May 23, 1991)
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness the examiner offers Downes in view of
Chinnaswamy, Filkin and Bell.
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellants or the
examiner, we make reference to the brief and the answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on
appeal, the rejection advanced by the examiner and the evidence
of obviousness relied upon by the examiner as support for the
rejection. We have, likewise, reviewed and taken into
consideration, in reaching our decision, the appellants'
arguments set forth in the brief along with the examiner's
rationale in support of the rejection and arguments in rebuttal
set forth in the examiner's answer.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007