Appeal No. 96-3895
Application 08/288,103
first coming up with values representative of normal systematic
activity and then subtracting them from the combined filtered
measurements. Capps, on the other hand, does not make up for the
deficiencies discussed above with respect to Marko. Capps is
relied on by the examiner only for satisfying the more specific
features relating to sensing engine vibrations.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the rejection
of claims 1-6, 11-15, and 17-30.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 1-6, 11, 14, 15, and 17-29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Marko is reversed.
The rejection of claims 12, 13 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Marko and Capps is reversed.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007