Appeal No. 2001-1186
Application No. 08/819,609
(Brief, page 15) that there is no apparent motivation to apply
the ultrasonic transducer teachings of Johnson to those of Grills
and G. I. Cohn. In our view, we fail to see how or why the
skilled artisan would be led to the teachings of Johnson since
the problems associated with providing an accurate indication of
fuel volume in a tank in a moving vehicle such as those in Grills
and a fuel tank subject to pitch and roll variations such as in
G. I. Cohn are non-existent in a stationary storage tank such as
that described by Johnson. Further, our review of the Breed
reference, directed to the development of a neural network useful
in automobile diagnostic testing, reveals nothing which would
overcome the deficiencies of Grills, G. I. Cohn, and Johnson.
Turning to a consideration of independent claim 16, the
representative claim for Appellants’ suggested grouping of claims
16, 19, and 20, we note that while we found Appellants’ arguments
to be persuasive with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1-15, 17, and 18 discussed supra, we reach
the opposite conclusion with respect to the rejection of claim
16. Our review of the disclosure of G. I. Cohn, directed to the
development of an algorithm based on measurements of different
values of pitch and roll angles at different levels of fuel tank
volume, reveals, in our view, that all of the limitations of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007