Appeal No. 1996-3276
Application 07/978,518
Reference is made to Appellant’s briefs and the 3
Examiner's answers for their respective positions.
OPINION
We have considered the record before us, and we will
reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 11 to 25.
The Examiner has rejected all these claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Ihara in view of Matsuura
and APA.
We first consider claim 1. After explaining what each
reference discloses, the Examiner concludes that
The artisan would have arrived at ... (Tmin, ... , N1max,
...) indicated for the pulse counting and idle time measuring
functions simply by performing a routine analysis of the
communications signals and protocol defined in the SAE J1850
standard. It would then have been a matter of routine skill
for the artisan to adjust the operating parameters of the
Ihara and Matsuura counting and timing circuitry to operate to
determine abnormal performance of the communications signal
transmission [answer, pages 5 to 6].
The Examiner continues in the objective to establish a
prima
facie case and states
3 A reply brief was filed [paper no. 24] and was entered
in the record, however, no further response was deemed
necessary by the Examiner [paper no. 25].
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007