Appeal No. 1999-2095
Application 08/475,624
The examiner additionally relies on the admitted prior
art (hereinafter APA) described on pages 1-6 of appellants’
specification.
Appealed claims 7 through 18 and 25 through 29 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
APA in view of Tieden. The examiner concludes in substance
that the teachings of Tieden would have made it obvious to
store the signals generated by the programmed controller
described on page 5 of appellants’ specification and to later
retrieve the stored signals for the reasons discussed on pages
7, 8 and 10 of the answer. Reference is made to the
examiner’s answer for further details of the rejection.
With regard to the APA, appellants concede that the prior
art controllers monitor the operational status of the
conversion machines for various events, including jamming of
the machine (see page 15 of the main brief). Appellants
nevertheless maintain that the prior art monitoring step is
not performed for the purpose of storing the generated
signals. Appellants thus argue that the APA lacks a teaching
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007