Appeal No. 1997-2049
Application 08/431,130
respective positions expressed by appellants and the examiner,
it is our determination that the standing § 103 rejection of
claims 3-19 should not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
According to appellants (specification, pages 1-2), it is
conventional in the automotive service industry to employ an
auxiliary diagnostic tool known as a scan tool, typically hand
held, to interface with the on-board controller of a vehicle
to aid in diagnosing problems. An alleged problem with known
scan tools is their inability to accommodate a wide variety of
automobile models without requiring substantial hardware and
software modification. Appellants’ solution to this alleged
problem is to provide an off-board master controller “to
interface to the scan tool and provide[] sophisticated
updating and diagnostic capabilities not feasible to include
in the scan tool itself” (specification, page 3). This
solution is reflected in independent claim 3 by claim language
calling for a service tool comprising (1) an off-board master
controller having a processor and memory means, and (2) a hand
held tool having (a) memory and processing means, (b) a first
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007