Appeal No. 96-0417 Page 6
Application No. 07/951,308
Appellants argue that the art cited by the examiner does
not teach or suggest the method steps claimed (main brief,
pages 7-10 and reply brief, pages 1-4). We likewise find that
the examiner has failed to point out any disclosure or
teaching suggesting the claimed process steps by Price. We
agree with appellants (reply brief, page 3) that the method
taught by Price teaches a sequence of steps that differs from
appellants’ method in that Price teaches linearization of an
input signal prior to modifying the linearized signal for a
flow (viscosity) compensation (column 10, lines 45 - column
11, line 2).
The examiner appears to conclude that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the
signal linearization correction or the flow property
(viscosity) signal compensation first from the disclosure of
Price (answer, page 7). However, the examiner presents no
factual basis for supporting this conclusion. In fact, the
process of Price teaches a contrary order for correction and
compensation of the signal as indicated above.
“Where the legal conclusion [of obviousness] is not
supported by facts it cannot stand.” In re Warner, 379 F.2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007