Appeal No. 2002-0585
Application No. 09/088,307
specification is truly enabling, In re Marzocchi, 439 F.2d 220,
169 USPQ 367 (CCPA 1971); In re Sichert, 566 F.2d 1154, 196 USPQ
209 (CCPA 1977).
Moreover, if an examiner had a reasonable basis for
questioning the sufficiency of the disclosure, it was incumbent
on appellants to come forward with evidence, if they could, to
rebut the examiner’s position. In re Buchner, 929 F.2d 660, 18
USPQ2d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
In the instant case, the teaching by the specification,
e.g., pages 22-24, regarding parameters k and kbasis, clearly
corresponds in scope with the claimed parameters. Appellants
have explained, convincingly in our view, that these parameters
are merely coefficients corresponding to the proportional,
derivative and integral factors in the well known equation
describing the operation of a PID controller. As further
explained by appellants, e.g., pages 2-4 of the reply brief,
these factors are chosen in order to have the particular system
operate properly, the actual determination of specific values
constituting the well-known “tuning” of a PID controller, and,
since each system is different, it would be useless to provide
specific values for these parameters.
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007