Appeal No. 2000-1961
Application 08/840,200
The examiner states that it would have been obvious that
there may be changes over time in the operating characteristics
of a mechanism, such as due to normal component wear and tear,
thus there would have been a need to modify the baseline data set
for the mechanism (FR7).
Appellants argue that none of the references teaches
modifying the baseline during on-line operations (Br11).
This claim recites changing the baseline data set during the
on-line operation, which we interpreted was not recited in
claim 16, and is part of what appellants have argued as the point
of novelty of their invention. Again, more than mere made-up
reasons are required from the examiner to show obviousness,
especially where the limitation occurs at the point of novelty of
the invention. The examiner has provided no evidence of
modifying the baseline data based on time-related changes in the
operating characteristics or other conditions. We conclude that
the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to claim 19. The rejection of claim 19
is reversed.
Claim 21
Claim 21 refers to the method of claim 16, "further
including the step of identifying and processing data generated
between shutdown and start-up of a system associated with the
- 16 -
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007