Appeal No. 1999-1621
Application No. 08/035,348
knock variable” is understood from the reference to the bottom
of page 23 of the instant specification to refer to averaging
a newly provided knock variable with previously provided knock
variables, in effect, producing a running average of all knock
variable values. Perhaps there is some connection between
such “trended time weighted version of said knock variable”
and the “average” energy within a predetermined knock spectra,
as disclosed by Remboski, but, if so, the examiner has not
indicated any such connection in the rationale for the instant
rejection.
The examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness with regard to the claimed subject matter. The
alleged “motivation” provided by the examiner is not
motivation at all, as required by 35 U.S.C. 103, but merely a
reason fabricated by impermissible hindsight gleaned from a
knowledge of appellants’ disclosed invention.
Since Remboski fails to disclose providing a knock
indication when the knock variable exceeds a magnitude of a
“trended time weighted version of said knock variable” by a
predetermined magnitude, a failure correctly recognized by the
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007