Appeal 2006-3245
Application 10/383,224
It is not necessarily the case, however, that the sinusoidal presentation of
time of the tide is unambiguous. As explained by Appellants, with reference to
Figure 4B in the Specification, the sine wave is not an unambiguous presentation
of time because two events could occur at different times but have identical
presentations of time (Specification 8: [0039]). Hirvonen does not expressly
disclose a presentation of time with a period defined as less than a full cycle, as
suggested by the Examiner, and Hirvonen does not otherwise make clear that
defining the tidal period as less than a full cycle is necessarily present in the system
described in Hirvonen. Instead, the Examiner describes a mere possibility of
making the defined period less than a full cycle, and such a mere possibility is an
insufficient basis for a finding of anticipation by inherency.
Further, we find no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Hirvonen for
presenting tidal variations over time in a manner to avoid ambiguity, because
Hirvonen is not concerned with the time at which the sea water achieved a certain
level. Hirvonen does not take into account ambiguity, because the time at which
the sea reached a certain level is not a factor in Hirvonen’s calculation. Rather, as
explained supra, Hirvonen is interested merely in the value of the water level. As
such, Hirvonen does not provide a teaching, suggestion, or motivation for
“incorporating a presentation of time into at least one input data component
wherein the presentation of time is periodic, continuous and unambiguous within a
period of the at least one element with periodic time-dependent behaviour” as
recited in independent claim 1 and does not provide a teaching, suggestion, or
motivation for “at least one input data component comprising a presentation of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013