Ex parte DANNENBERG - Page 6

              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                       


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007