Appeal No. 2001-0034
Application 08/944,807
examiner’s statement that it would have been obvious “to modify
the control system of White” because “such modification” would
provide “maximum fuel economy and engine performance,” while
“minimizing driver fatigue and improving the overall vehicle
performance” (answer, sentence bridging pages 3 and 4) also does
not suffice. Also lacking is a clear and precise explanation of
how the examiner’s “modified” White system, whatever that may be,
would satisfy each and every element of, for example, claim 1.
It is therefore our conclusion that the examiner has not met his
initial burden of establishing that White presents a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of
independent claim 1. This constitutes a first reason
necessitating reversal of the examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
4, 6, 8 and 9.
In addition, we see the requirement of claim 1 that the
control computer is responsive to the second switch position to
inhibit execution of said software algorithm such that said
number of automatically selectable gear ratios are manually
selectable as being a difference between the system of claim 1
and the system of White. The examiner’s assertion (answer, page
6, last line) that this is taught by White at columns 5 and 7-12
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007