Appeal No. 1996-3356
Application No. 08/235,668
and that the program can be easily changed. (See answer at page 4.) While we agree
with the examiner that Hartford has a number of discrete teachings and statements, which
in a vacuum may be viewed as teaching elements of the claimed invention, we find that
Hartford alone does not teach or suggest the claimed invention.
Appellants admit that Hartford teaches that the read periods for sensors vary with
engine speed, but that this is not the invention per se. (See response at page 2.)
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the invention to have varied the read-in periods of the sensor signals in
dependence on the speed variation of the sensor signals and that the examiner’s
conclusion thereof is based upon hindsight. (See response at page 2.) We agree with
appellants. Appellants argue that the examiner’s citations to Hartford do not lead to the
conclusion that a computer program that reads in sensor signals that are required therefor
in each output period, yet reads in other sensor signals only during every second or fourth
output period. (See response at page 2 and brief at pages 11-12.) We agree with
appellants that the examiner has not shown how and why it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to have had a different sampling
frequency for different quantities being measured for use in the same calculation.
While the specific recitation of this quality of the disclosed invention is not explicitly
recited in the express language of the independent claims, it is clear that the limitations as
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007