Appeal 2007-1444
Application 10/732,497
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of facts and analysis above, we conclude that
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 20 and 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Scoccia.
REMAND
With regard to claims 20 and 21, we note that Scoccia discloses
(1) determining an equilibrium pressure while the system is inactive;
(2) determining an ambient temperature; and (3) determining if a difference
between an expected pressure corresponding to the determined ambient
temperature and the determined equilibrium pressure exceeds a selected threshold.
(Findings of Fact 1-3)
This application is remanded, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1), for the
Examiner to consider whether claims 20 and 21 should be rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Scoccia alone or in combination with other
references. If the Examiner elects to enter such a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a), the Examiner shall consider the recent decision of the U.S. Supreme
Court in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)
(setting forth revised analytical framework for obviousness determinations).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013