Appeal No. 1998-2958
Application No. 08/671,516
types” was well known, “it would have involved only routine skill to select which one to use based upon
the data available as well as the ease of solving a particular ‘calculation type.’” It appears to us that the
examiner’s reasoning amounts to impermissible hindsight since only appellant’s disclosure teaches the
desirability of having the predetermined set of calculation types stored in the computer system to allow
selection of a calculation type. As explained by appellant, at page 4 of the brief, and supported by the
Summary Of The Invention section of the instant specification, this permits appellant to calculate the
air/fuel ratio “according to the measurement situation or the preference of the user” and can be
“especially valuable in a situation where initially an oxygen gas measurement is previously available, but
is no longer available for whatever reason...” Thus, the instant claims specifically require the selection
of a calculation type from a predetermined set of calculation types and the claim limitation is explained
to be for a specific purpose. Yet, the evidence relied on by the examiner for a showing of obviousness
fails to teach the explicit claim limitation of such a selection and there is no suggestion by any evidence
proffered by the examiner as to why the artisan might want to have the capability of selecting a
calculation type from a predetermined set of calculation types stored in a computer system.
Accordingly, we hold that the examiner has failed to present a prima facie case of obviousness
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with regard to the instant claimed subject matter.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007