Appeal No. 1997-1783
Application No. 08/421,016
The Examiner seemingly fails to appreciate that the update rate is simply
one factor of the Luitje Delta Equation algorithm that defines the gauge
speed of movement. In contrast, Applicant’s [claimed] invention programs
that actual speed at which a gauge is to move as a programming input, and
therefore does not have to rely on repeated execution of an algorithm, as
Luitje does, to define the gauge speed each time that the gauge is to move.
Once programmed, Applicant’s [claimed] invention uses the same speed of
gauge movement each time the gauge is to move, regardless of the
distance to be moved. (emphasis in original)
We agree with appellant. Elements (G), (H) and (I) of claim 1 are neither taught nor
suggested by the prior art. Appellant admits that elements (A)-(F) are taught by their own
prior art patent to Dannenberg and have framed the claim in Jepson format to show the
improvement over the prior art device. We agree with appellant.
Appellant further argues that the inclusion of an EEPROM into the combination of
Dannenberg and Luitje would not have been obvious as maintained by the examiner to
replace the firmware taught by Luitje. (See brief at pages 12.) We agree with appellant.
We find that the examiner has not provided a convincing line of reasoning why it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to replace
the firmware of Luitje with an EEPROM which is reprogrammable. The examiner has not
provided a motivation for such a substitution/modification of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007