Appeal No. 1997-1873
Application 08/300,855
invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d
1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996), citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983). cert. denied, 469
U.S. 851 (1984).
On pages 14 through 16 of the brief, Appellant argues that Kay does not teach or suggest
determining a steady state engine condition. We note that Appellant's claim 1 recites a method of
judging a steady state condition comprising the step of discontinuing monitoring if the difference is
outside a predetermined restriction width before the end of said period of monitoring and judging that
the engine is in a steady state operation if the difference is within a predetermined restriction width at the
end of said period of monitoring. We note that Appellant's claim 6 also recites a diagnosing method of
an engine comprising the steps of discontinuing said diagnosis if said difference is outside said range,
judging that said engine is operated in a steady state if the difference is within the range and continuing
said diagnosis while said steady state exists. We note that the only remaining independent claim, claim
8, recites similar language of determining the steady state of an engine. On page 6 of the answer, the
Examiner states that Kay does teach in column 6, line 8, determining the steady state of the engine by
the comparsion of the speed to a reference. On page 2 of the answer, the Examiner states that Kay
teaches a method of judging a steady state operation of the engine pointing us to the abstract.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007