Appeal 2006-2619
Application 10/935,566
Claims 1 and 11 illustrate Appellants’ invention of a system that
facilitates configuring a welder power supply during a welding procedure,
and are representative of the claims on appeal:
1. A system that facilitates configuring a welder power supply during
a welding procedure comprising:
a component that receives a welding parameter; and
a configuration component that automatically applies a welder
configuration to the welder power supply based at least upon the welding
parameter.
11. A system that facilitates configuring a welder power supply
during a welding procedure comprising:
a communications component that receives information from a remote
system, the information comprising at least one of a welder configuration
and a welding parameter;
an analyzer that determines the welder configuration to employ, based
at least in part upon the received information; and
a configuration component that applies the welder configuration to the
welder power supply.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Beiermann US 6,479,792 B1 Nov. 12, 2002
Hayes US 6,504,131 B1 Jan. 7, 2003
Niedereder US 6,797,921 Sep. 28, 2004
The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niedereder taken with either
one of Beiermann or Hayes (Answer 3-6).
Appellants principally argue independent claim 1 as representative of
the claims as a group and further argue independent claim 11 (Br. 5 and 8;
Reply Br. 2). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claim 1 and, to
the extent it is argued, claim 11. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005).
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007