Appeal No. 1998-1106
Application No. 08/593,110
Turning next to the obviousness rejection of claim 2, the
examiner is of the opinion (answer, page 5) that “the
applicant’s program data preparing means is taught by the
application programs stored in the cell controlling computer
40 of Burke.”
A review of Burke does not reveal such a program data
preparing means that functions in the manner set forth in
claim 2. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claim 2 and its
dependent claims 3 and 6 through 13 is reversed because we
agree with the appellant (brief, page 10) that “Kabe and Burke
simply do not disclose or suggest the data logging programs
and the program data preparing means required by claim 2.”
Turning lastly to claim 4, the obviousness rejection of
this claim is reversed because we can not find any evidence of
a “logging setting means for setting a trigger condition
section and a processing section in the FA controller, wherein
said logging setting means is set in a ladder format” in the
teachings and suggestions of Kabe, and because the examiner’s
rejection does not specifically address this claim.
DECISION
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007