Calculations fail in Ex parte Trosman
Along those same lines, Appellants argue that the combination of Orii and Ueda proposed by the Examiner would destroy the intended function of Orii, and that the addition of Johansson with Orii and Ueda would cause Orii to be inoperable for its intended purpose. App. Br. 18. Appellants assert that “the Examiner disregards the extent of experimentation described by Orii.” Id. According to Appellants, “such casual manipulation of Orii’s rigorously defined part- length rod orientations, using only the general teachings of Ueda, renders the Orii reference inoperable for its intended purpose” and the proposed “combination of Johansson with Orii and Ueda would violate the conditional Equations of Orii.” App. Br. 18-19.
The conditional equations, or “Inequalities,” as characterized by the Examiner (Ans. 9), alluded to by Appellants are Equations 1, 11, 3, 4, 15, and 6 set forth by Orii at column 3, lines 25-43. We agree with the Examiner that these conditions, expressed as inequalities, leave a substantial degree of latitude for compliance (see Ans. 9), and we reject Appellants’ argument that application of these inequalities would require significant calculation and additional experimentation to ensure satisfaction of the expressed conditions. In fact, the Examiner performed the calculations to show that the Orii configuration modified as proposed by the Examiner satisfies the mathematical conditions set forth by Orii.