Appeal No. 1997-1111 Page 6
Application No. 08/105,899
rejections advanced by the examiner, and the evidence of
anticipation and obviousness relied upon by the examiner as
support for the rejections. We have, likewise, reviewed and
taken into consideration, in reaching our decision, the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the briefs along with the
examiner's rationale in support of the rejections and
arguments in rebuttal set forth in the examiner's answer. As
a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
We begin with the rejection of claims 1, 9, 10 and 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as unpatentable over Mega.
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as
set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference.
Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
The examiner’s position (answer, pages 3 and 4) is that
As per claims 1 and 14, appellant’s determining step
is taught by Mega’s disclosure that the difference
(A-B), the integral value of the difference and the
differential value of the difference are calculated
(see column 5, lines 10-16). These are characteristic
of values normally used for tuning PID controllers.
The appellant’s calculation step and tuning step are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007