Appeal No. 1996-3356
Application No. 08/235,668
rather than forming the actuating variable in each output period from all of the individual
components with values being valid in that output period. Hartford uses all actual
measured values for each formation of an actuating value rather than the use of prior
measured values that are deemed valid at the time of forming the actuating value. While
the language of the last step of claim 1 may be deemed to read on the use of measured
values for each formation of an actuating value, we deem this step to be limited by the
prior step of adjusting the determination period of each component. Therefore, we find
that Hartford does not teach or fairly suggest this limitation.
Throughout the examiner’s rejection the examiner refers to various distinct
quotations in Hartford and generalizes a statement regarding independent sampling and
computer control may be easily changed or modified as desired. (See answer at pages
3-5.) We disagree with the examiner’s generalization concerning the sampling as
discussed above and further in light of our finding that Hartford merely teaches at column
311 that a computer may be programmed and used. We do not agree with the examiner
as the examiner suggests that a control law can be picked and then the program modified.
We find that the examiner’s analysis provides no convincing line of reasoning why it would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to make
any desired change in a control law to motivate the program to be changed. The
examiner maintains that the “motivation is within practicing skills for practitioners at the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007