Appeal No. 1997-1111 Page 26
Application No. 08/105,899
unpatentable over Mega is reversed. The decision of the
examiner to reject claims 2-5, 8, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Mega in view of Hägglund is reversed.
The decision of the examiner to reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Mega in view of Kraus is reversed.
The decision of the examiner to reject claim 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Mega in view of Ying is
reversed. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 9,
10, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as unpatentable over Ueda
is affirmed. The decision of the examiner to reject claims 2-
5, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Ueda
in view of Hägglund is reversed. The decision of the examiner
to reject claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Ueda in view of Kraus is affirmed. The decision of the
examiner to reject claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
4(...continued)
rejections over Mega (alone or in view of additional prior art) included
parallel rejections over Ueda (alone or in view of additional prior art). The
examiner may wish to consider a rejection of claims 6 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as unpatentable over Ueda in view of the admitted prior art found on page
8 of the specification. The examiner may consider Ueda’s teaching that other
methods for determining system identification may be used in a similar manner
(col. 7, lines 11-16), and the teaching of the admitted prior art
(specification, page 8) that “[t]he model matching tuning method is known to
those of skill in this technology.”
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007