Appeal No. 2001-2636
Application No. 09/160,127
remote conversion machine (claim 47) or from a memory
device of a controller for the conversion machine
(claim 75), while claims 56 and 80, the only other
independent claims on appeal, are limited to the storage of
machine information in a memory. Machine information is
expressly defined in appellants’ specification (see pages
7-8) as being information related to the conversion machine
“such as a serial number, software revision number and
date, physical site location, customer data and a
conversion machine number or identifier.” The appealed
claims are therefore limited to this special definition of
machine information. Note Lantech, Inc. v. Keip Machine
Company, 32 F.3d 542, 547, 31 USPQ2d 1666, 1670 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
The applied references do not teach or suggest the
retrieval or storage of machine information as defined in
appellants’ specification. Furthermore, the examiner’s
dismissal of the claim limitations pertaining to the
machine information as being “a matter of design choice”
(answer, page 6) is unconvincing especially in light of the
fact that the storage and retrieval of such machine
information solve problems relating to the identification
and other particulars pertaining to machines in the field.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007