Appeal No. 1999-1621
Application No. 08/035,348
examiner, the examiner cannot merely state that it would have
been obvious to compare the knock variable in Remboski to the
magnitude of a “trended time weighted version of said knock
variable” with no evidence as to why it would have been
obvious to do so. A general rationale that it would improve
“accuracy and engine performance” to make such a comparison,
without some suggestion in the prior art that such is the
case, is tantamount to saying that the modification would have
been made because appellants made it and it improved accuracy
and engine performance. This is clearly a rationale based on
impermissible hindsight and is not permitted within the
confines of 35 U.S.C. 103.
The examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 14 and 27
under 35 U.S.C. 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007