Ex parte Jaberi et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 21, 1998

08162820 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 21, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 3, 1993. According to appellants, this application1
is a continuation of Application 07/987,093, filed December 7, 1992, now abandoned, which is a
continuation of Application 07/579,015, filed September 7, 1990, now abandoned.
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today (1) was not written for
publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 10
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte SAM H. JABERI
and J. MARTIN HADANK
_____________
Appeal No. 95-2925
Application 08/162,8201
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before URYNOWICZ, LEE and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent Judges.
URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
Decision on Appeal
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 10-15, 19, 29 and 30, all the claims
pending in the application.
Appeal No. 95-2925
Application 08/162,820
2
The invention pertains to an apparatus and method of monitoring engine parameters.
Claim 10 is illustrative and reads as follows:
10. An apparatus for monitoring a plurality of different parameters related to the
operating condition of an engine powered device, comprising:
a plurality of sensors each sensing a different one of the plurality of operating parameters
of the engine powered device and each producing a parameter signal representative of the
parameter being sensed;
processor means for receiving said parameter signals, processing each of said parameter
signals and determining which ones of the parameter signals are at an undesirable operating
condition, classifying each parameter signal having an undesirable operating condition into one of
a preselected number of warning levels with respect to the severity of said undesirable operating
condition, selecting those classified parameter signals being at the highest warning level, and
producing a sequence of individual display control signals at spaced time intervals of those
parameter signals having the highest warning level, each display control signal of the sequence of
display control signals being related to a particular one of only the classified parameters having
the highest warning level; and
a first display having a plurality of selectively energizable segments arranged in a
preselected pattern and being connected to said processor means, said first display receiving said
sequence of display control signals and energizing a selected one of said plurality of segments
corresponding to the individual display signal being received at that time in the sequence and
visually indicating the magnitude of the individual sensed parameter.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of obviousness are:
Pomerantz 4,072,924 Feb. 7,
1978
Yashima et al. (Yashima) 4,072,925 Feb. 7, 1978
Kawasaki et al. (Kawasaki) 4,688,029 Aug. 18,
1987
Woodell 4,890,088 Dec. 26, 1989
Appeal No. 95-2925
Application 08/162,820
3
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
Claims 10 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Woodell in
view of Pomerantz.
Claims 11, 13-15 and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Woodell, Pomerantz and Kawasaki.
Claims 12 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Woodell,
Pomerantz, Kawasaki and Yashima.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellants with regard to the propriety of
these rejections are set forth in the final rejection (Paper No. 25) and the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 28) and the appellants’ brief (Paper No. 27).
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention is as described at 3. SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION, pages 2-4
of their brief. The nature of the invention is readily apparent from claim 10, reproduced above.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
Independent Claims 10 and 19
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the examiner and the
appellants, we have concluded that the rejection should not be sustained. Neither reference,
Woodell or Pomerantz, discloses selecting classified parameter signals being at the highest
warning level, and producing a sequence of individual display control signals at spaced time
intervals of those signals. Woodell does not select such signals. Woodell is concerned with
Appeal No. 95-2925
Application 08/162,820
4
displaying warning signals as they occur, with no regard as to their relative importance.
Pomerantz selects one parameter warning signal, that which represents the highest warning level
at any given time. This is evident from the fact that at column 3, lines 62-68, and column 4, lines
53-58, the message display system is disclosed as effective to display a message to a vehicle
operator corresponding only to the highest priority event (warning) when a plurality of events
occur concurrently. A second, serious condition of the engine would not be displayed
sequentially to the operator. The condition would apparently go unannounced to the operator
until the more serious highest priority event is cured.
We do not agree with the examiner’s position with respect to Woodell and Pomerantz
that,
“… it would have been obvious to group these sensed parameter signals
together as one group and displaying these sensed parameter signals with the same
highest warning levels first since it requires immediate action by the operator.”
The mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the examiner does
not make the modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Although the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the examiner, the suggestion
to modify the combined teachings of the two references is from the examiner, not the prior art.
Woodell and Pomerantz fail to suggest any motivation for, or desirability of, the changes
espoused by the examiner. The fact that the invention of Woodell could, by chance,
simultaneously give two or more warning signals as to diverse but serious engine conditions (i.e.,
Appeal No. 95-2925
Application 08/162,820
5
high engine temperature and low engine oil pressure) is not suggestive of the invention, when
considered with Pomerantz. There appears to be no suggestion in the prior art to display
sequentially only the highest level warning signals. Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection
of claims 10 and 19.
Because dependent claims 11-15, 29 and 30 are rejected over the prior art applied against
independent claims 10 and 19 further in view of Kawasaki or Kawasaki and Yashima, the
rejection of these claims will not be sustained.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR.)
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
) APPEALS AND
JAMESON LEE ) INTERFERENCES
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-2925
Application 08/162,820
6
ALAN J. HICKMAN
CATERPILLAR INC.
PATENT DEPARTMENT - AB6490
100 N.E. ADAMS STREET
PEORIA, IL 61629-6490