Appeal No. 1997-0202
Application No. 08/247,709
Answer to remain unrebutted by any convincing arguments of
Appellants. We note that even in Appellants’ interpretation of
Ehrlich (Brief, page 24), i.e., the system resets each time the
ignition is turned on, the claim 3 limitations would be met. As
to claims 4 and 5 we find the Examiner’s reasoning that Ehrlich’s
rate of blinking corresponds to attainment of a predetermined
threshold level convincing as well.
With respect to dependent claim 35, which is presently
dependent on canceled claim 1, both Appellants and the Examiner
have treated this claim as being properly dependent on claim 392.
We will do so as well and also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of this claim. We find the Examiner’s reasoning to be
convincing to the extent that the spurious signals that are
desired to be eliminated by Ehrlich (column 13, lines 58-68)
would obviously include such potentially signal degrading sources
such as drift and component aging.
2 Appellants attempted to correct the dependency of claim 35
to depend from claim 39 rather than canceled claim 1 in the
amendment after final rejection filed February 16, 1996. Such
amendment, however, was denied entry by the Examiner. At page 6
of the Brief, Appellants make reference to a second proposed
amendment after final which presumably again attempted to correct
the dependency of claim 39. This proposed amendment has not been
found associated with the application file.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007