Appeal No. 2005-2289 Page 4
Application No. 10/064,508
1984). In other words, there must be no difference between the claimed invention and
the reference disclosure, as viewed by a person of ordinary skill in the field of the
invention. Scripps Clinic & Research Found. v. Genentech Inc., 927 F.2d 1565, 1576,
18 USPQ2d 1001, 1010 (Fed. Cir. 1991). To meet this burden of establishing a prima
facie case of anticipation, the examiner must explain how the rejected claims are
anticipated by pointing out where all of the specific limitations recited in the rejected
claims are found in the prior art relied upon in the rejection.
In this case, the examiner has not pointed out where all of the limitations of
claims 1 and 11 (the independent claims on appeal) are found in either Toukura or
Muto. We have reviewed the portions of Toukura and Muto cited to by the examiner but
fail to find the following limitations: (1) detecting during engine acceleration variations in
the rotational state of a shaft, determining if the degree of change in rotational state
variation is excessive and will cause difficulties in the transmission system and
restricting engine output if the degree of change in rotational state of a shaft is
excessive as recited in claim 1 and (2) an engine control for detecting during engine
acceleration variations in the rotational state of a shaft, determining if the degree of
change in rotational state variation is excessive and will cause difficulties in the
transmission system, and restricting engine output if the degree of change in rotational
state of the shaft is excessive as recited in claim 11.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007