Ex parte DANNENBERG - Page 5

              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                                            


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007