Appeal No. 96-3895
Application 08/288,103
Opinion
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-6, 11, 14, 15,
and 17-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marko.
We also do not sustain the rejection of claims 12, 13 and 30
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marko and Capps.
The following two features, albeit written in different
forms, are required by all of the independent claims 1, 22 and
30:
(1) combining filtered measurements which
correspond to a particular angular position of the
crankshaft to produce combined measurements having
reduced random noise; and
(2) subtracting one of a series of predetermined
values each representing systematic activity at a
particular angular position of the crankshaft from each
corresponding combined filtered measurement to reduce
systematic variation present within the measurements so
as to produce a diagnostic envelope which allows both
detection and identification of engine operating
anomolies.
We agree with the appellants that neither Marko nor Capps,
either alone or in combination, discloses or reasonably suggests
either one of the above-noted features of the claimed invention.
On page 4 of the answer, the examiner identifies column 5,
lines 15-29 of Marko as disclosing the combining of filtered
measurements which correspond to a particular angular position of
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007