Appeal No. 1997-1783
Application No. 08/421,016
programming and we find no suggestion in Luitje, Dannenberg or the definition of
EEPROM. We agree with appellant that the examiner is combining these teachings using
improper hindsight reconstruction. Moreover, even if the proposed combination
were properly combined, the combination still does not teach or suggest the invention set
forth in the language of claim 1.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We find that the examiner has not provided a
teaching or convincing line of reasoning why one skilled in the art would have desired to
have the program input to the erasable storage and to store the “movement speed data
defining speed at which the gauge movement is to move when the microprocessor acts on
gauge signal data commanding a change in the position of the gauge movement” (See
claim 1, paragraph (G).) (See brief at pages 9-11.) Appellant argues that the DELTA
calculation in Luitje is different from the operation of the claimed invention and that the
update rate of Luitje is not the movement speed of the gauge. Id. We agree with appellant.
“To reject claims in an application under section 103, an examiner must show an
unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1557, 34
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007