Appeal No. 1997-0854
Application No. 08/292,846
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to automate the process, the particular values for
the timings, as well as for other process parameters
such as the air flow and air temperature, being
dependent upon well[-]known factors such as the
dimensions and shape of the studs and on the type of
materials used in the stud. [Page 3 of Answer].
Also, we concur with the examiner that it was "well known in
the automation of a process to input particular values for a
controller of a process, for example to automate the process
for processing a particular type of material" (page 4 of
Answer). Appellants have not apprised us of why the claimed
automated steps would have been unobvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art, especially in this age of high automation.
Instead, appellants only emphasize that the claimed automated
steps for controlling the individual operations of the
process, which operations, per se, are taught or suggested by
the prior art, are not disclosed in the references.
Appellants do not claim any particular new or unobvious
device(s) for controlling the various parameters of the hot
staking method. It is well settled that it is a matter of
obviousness for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide
automated means to accomplish the same or obvious result as
non-automated means of the prior art. See In re Venner, 262
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007