Appeal 2007-1344
Application 10/045,789
which is present in both claims 6 and 12. Becker discloses an alternator regulator,
but does not teach the missing limitation (Finding of Fact 8). The rejection of
claims 6 and 12 thus is improper because none of the cited references teach the
limitation of selection of control parameters by algorithmic processing of values of
a plurality of bit positions of the version coding, and the Examiner provides no
explanation why such a limitation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 6 and 12.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1-12.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-12 is reversed.
REVERSED
APJ Initials:
DBW
LEH
JDB
JRG
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013