Appeal No. 96-2190
Application 08/287,758
by the Examiner. The paragraph is not a statement of what was
actually being practiced before the invention was made,
rather, the paragraph states that if one were to ascertain the
required number of working hours, then one would have to
perform this calculation by hand. Thus, we conclude that the
APA does not teach the calculation by hand of the remaining
required working hours during a determined period as hours are
being worked on various days during the determined period.
Therefore, the obviousness rejection based on the APA is
flawed. However, we further consider below the section 103
rejection as presented in the record.
Appellant argues that neither the APA nor Chalker shows a
“determined period” [claim 1, lines 3, 7, and 14] to be
greater than one day. [Brief, pages 10 to 12]. The Examiner
states that Chalker discloses a display which shows the “hours
remaining necessary to complete a work tour.” The Examiner
alleges that this is a teaching of a general nature and would
include variable times such as 40 hours per week or 150 hours
per month. [Answer, page 3]. We do not agree with the
Examiner. Chalker clearly points out that the tour of duty is
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007