Ex Parte Pillar - Page 10




            Appeal No. 2005-2341                                                        Παγε 10              
            Application No. 10/420,187                                                                       



            problems are detected and to prevent the laptop computer from shuffling when the                 
            vehicle is moving in the test environment."  This obviousness determination was                  
            amplified by the examiner on pages 9-10 of the answer as follows:                                
                   Replacing the test module 16 and the operator interface 17 (fig.1) with the laptop        
                   computer that can perform diagnostic test on board the vehicle of Steinmetz by            
                   connecting the laptop to the connector 18 (fig.1) of Sonehara would have been             
                   obvious when an on-board diagnosis on the vehicle of Sonehara is desired.                 
                   Concerning [the] "mounting'' feature, since Steinmetz also teaches that the laptop        
                   computer (the diagnostic aid (DA)) (col.8, lines 51-59) is capable of acquiring           
                   data directly via data bus from other subsystems of the vehicle when certain              
                   subsystem in the vehicle is operating in a certain way (col.11, lines 30-36.,             
                   col.18, lines 36-44), and since it is well known actual running of the vehicle to         
                   obtain operating data from [a] vehicle subsystem is normally a necessary                  
                   procedure for collecting operating data of the subsystems in [a] diagnostic               
                   process, fixedly mounting the laptop computer on a proper support so that the             
                   laptop does not fall or fly around when the vehicle is running for data collection        
                   during the diagnostic data collection procedure is well motivated within the level        
                   of an ordinary person skilled in the art at the time the invention was made.              


                   The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not suggest mounting the             
            control module and the operator interface of Sonehara on-board the vehicle.  We agree.           
            In that regard, while Steinmetz would have suggested substituting a laptop computer              
            for the control module and the operator interface of Sonehara, there is no teaching or           
            suggestion in Steinmetz to mount the laptop computer on-board Sonehara's vehicle.  To            
            supply this omission in the teachings of the applied prior art, the examiner made the            
            above-noted determination that this difference would have been obvious to an artisan.            








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007