Appeal No. 95-4609
Application 08/263,903
art is combined exactly as proposed by the examiner, the
invention of appellants’ claim 1 does not result. Specifically,
appellants argue that adding more major intervals in Chinnaswamy
would not result in the determination of non-performances
occurring during each of these different major intervals by
averaging the non-performances over multiple minor intervals. In
other words, Chinnaswamy would determine an average over a four
minute interval, for example, by averaging all the measurements
over the four minute interval rather than computing the average
based on a smaller number of the measurements. Thus, each major
interval in Chinnaswamy would have its own actual measurement as
opposed to a computation based on a smaller number of
measurements. We agree with appellants.
Although the language of the determining step of claim 1
is broad and is possibly subject to varying interpretations, the
examiner has never indicated that this step is being interpreted
in any manner other than what is intended by appellants. Thus,
it appears that the examiner has correctly recognized that the
determining step of claim 1 requires that a count of multiple
uniform intervals (minor intervals) be used to compute an average
of the counts over non-uniform intervals (major intervals). We
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007