Appeal No. 2003-1836 Page 3
Application No.10/085,590
(3) analyzing said data at said control and identifying a fault at least
based on said data from step 2; and
(4) sending a signal at least when a fault is identified in Step (3).
Claims 20-23 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, ¶ 2, as indefinite.
Claims 20-23 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over U.S. Patent
No. 4,765,150 ("Persem") and U.S. Patent No. 6,302,654 ("Millet"). Claim 25 also
stands rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Persem; Millet; and U.S. Patent
No. 5,350,039 ("Voss").
OPINION
Our opinion addresses the rejections in the following order:
• indefiniteness rejection
• obviousness rejection over Persem and Millet
• obviousness rejection over Persem, Millet, and Voss.
A. INDEFINITENESS REJECTION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
address the point of contention therebetween. The examiner asserts, "whether or not
data is considered a 'fault' is purely arbitrary which renders as uncertain the scope of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007