Appeal No. 2004-1224
Application No. 09/532,379
second “matching” step required by claim 1 on appeal (the
examiner’s “step E”) are even more general, merely stating that
this step “is disclosed by ‘total quality control’ at Salvandy
[sic, Salvendy] page 2226.” Answer, page 8. The examiner fails
to explain how this concept of Salvendy discloses or suggests the
specific step recited in claim 1 on appeal.
Additionally, the examiner finds that the “tests to
determine test characteristics” limitation of claim 1 (step D,
part 1) is disclosed by Salvendy’s Figure 85.2, the “Inspection”
Production Model (Answer, page 8). As correctly argued by
appellant (Brief, page 8), the cited portions of Salvendy relate
to inspecting incoming parts and do not disclose or suggest
performing tests to determine test characteristics from vehicles
with a best in class rating. The examiner has failed to explain
or establish how this cited portion of Salvendy discloses or
suggests the claimed step (step D, part 1).
The examiner only applies Juran to show use of the best in
class rating to determine the quality of proposed designs for new
vehicle models (Answer, page 9, with regards to claim 1, step D,
part 2). Therefore, Juran does not remedy the above noted
deficiencies found in Salvendy.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007