Appeal No. 2001-0041
Application No. 08/661,899
Claims 29, 35
Appellant groups claims 29 and 35 together (Brief at 4), and presents arguments
for the group at pages 15 through 17. However, appellant alleges deficiencies in
individual references which is, at best, only a partial response to the rejection applied.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the
rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)).
Appellant does not contest the examiner’s finding of motivation for combining the
prior art. Appellant’s arguments presented are, in the main, more specific than the
broad requirements of claims 29 and 35, and thus not commensurate in scope with the
subject matter claimed.
Appellant appears to presume that the claims require a machine “verification” of
regularly scheduled maintenance. However, claim 29 recites, “determining from said
permanent history if said regularly scheduled event was performed at said time
indicated in said indicating step.” Claim 35 recites, “determining from said permanent
history if said one regularly scheduled event was performed at said time indicated in
said indicating step.” Neither claim distinguishes over a human being doing the
“determining” -- i.e., the “verification.”
Stewart discloses, particularly at column 7, automated functions for data
collection and processing relevant to maintenance. Stewart describes the system as
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007