Appeal 2007-1854
Application 10/920,345
presume that the prior art structure would also possess a claimed function
employing an inherency theory. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d at 1477,
44 USPQ2d at 1432. Here, however, the Examiner has not reasonably
articulated how the analyzer (programmed computer) described in Aubel
would be capable of carrying out the claimed processing and warning
function that the claimed device is structured to perform without
modification to the system of Aubel (Answer 8; Aubel; col. 5, ll. 44-67). It
follows that we shall reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection over
Aubel, on this record.
§ 102(b) Rejection over Koch
This rejection fairs no better for reasons analogous to those set forth
above and in the Briefs with respect to the anticipation rejection over Aubel
(Br 14-15; Reply Br. 6-7). Here, the Examiner has not pointed out any
described structure in Koch that would warrant a finding that the tire
breakdown warning device of Koch has a processing section and warning
section constructed so as to be capable of functioning as required by the
claimed device processing section and warning section; that is, a device
capable of determining when the second of the above–identified claimed
circumstances (the temperature rise over a unit of time value exceeds a
predetermined threshold value for a rate of temperature increase) exists
together with a warning section coupled to such a processing section in a
manner such that a warning would be issued upon determination of the
existence of such a circumstance.
Hence, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection over Koch.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013