Appeal No. 2000-1475 Page 10
Application No. 08/844,016
controlling said regulating means in accordance with said
driver's wish value" as recited in independent claim 12; and
(4) "determining a correction value based on said system
parameters, determining a driver's wish value based on the
measured inlet pressure P and the correction value, and
vor
controlling said regulating means in accordance with said
driver's wish value" as recited in independent claim 13.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 1, and claims 2 to 4 dependent
thereon, and claims 11 to 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is
reversed.
The obviousness rejection
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28
USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). A prima facie case of
obviousness is established by presenting evidence that would
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007