Appeal No. 2000-0968 Page 13
Application No. 08/629,484
Thus, assuming, arguendo, that it would have been obvious to
combine the engine analyzer of Jonker with the digital
oscilloscope of Moriyasu and the admitted prior art as held by
the Examiner, the combination would still not disclose storing of
“display format parameters” as well as the reconfiguration of
frozen display format by plural traces when the freeze mode is
entered. Therefore, the Examiner has failed to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 1. Accordingly
we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Jonker, Moriyasu and the admitted prior art.
We next consider the rejection of representative claim 18.
As the basis for obviousness rejection of claim 18, the Examiner
merely refers to the rejection of claim 17 and apparently relies
on the same reasoning. With respect to claim 17, the Examiner
states that admitted prior art shows that it is known to display
the engine data in three different types of sweep for displaying
a waveform over a complete engine cycle (answer, page 6).
Appellants argue that Moriyasu teaches nothing about
ignition waveforms or engine sweeps. Appellants further point
out that while Jonker teaches different types of engine sweep for
live ignition waveform displays, the reference discloses nothing
about reconfiguring or altering the engine sweep pattern in the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007