Appeal No. 1997-3205
Application 08/389,545
generating an index from said distribution of degradation values, commensurate with an
uncertainty at each time point, in said expected degradation value as computed by said deterministic
failure model.
The following references are relied on by the examiner:
Clark et al. (Clark) 5,050,108 Sept. 17, 1991
Maguire, Jr. et al. (Maguire) 5,331,579 Jul. 19, 1994
(effectively filed Aug. 2, 1989)
Claims 1 to 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the
examiner relies upon Clark in view of Maguire.
Rather than repeat the positions of appellants and the examiner, reference is made to the Briefs
and the Answers for the respective details thereof.1
OPINION
For the reasons generally set forth by appellants in the Brief, and for the reasons which follow,
we will reverse the rejection of claims 1 to 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As a consequence of our
review, we are in general agreement with appellants that the applied references to Clark and Maguire
would not have taught or suggested the method and system of appellants’ claims 1 to 10 on appeal (see
Brief, pages 7 to 8). More specifically, we find that neither Clark nor Maguire taken singly or in
combination teach or suggest the salient feature of claim 1 on appeal of defining a distribution of
We note that the after final amendment dated June 27, 1996, has been entered as per the Advisory Action1
of July 7, 1996. The Reply Brief of February 18, 1997, has been entered and considered by the examiner as indicated
in the Supplemental Examiner’s Answer dated April 1, 1997.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007