Appeal No. 2002-0585
Application No. 09/088,307
detecting said second production condition;
changing said one of said control characteristics to another
said control characteristic based on said second production
condition.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Anselrode 4,366,542 Dec. 28, 1982
Palmatier et al. [Palmatier} 5,127,324 Jul. 07, 1992
Additionally, the examiner relies on admitted prior art
[APA] in appellants’ statement, at page 15 of Paper No. 11,
regarding the disclosure of a PID controller and the values used
for the variables/parameters being adequate.
Claims 2-12 and 21-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112,
first paragraph as “failing to provide adequate written
descriptions” [answer-page 4].1
Claims 2-12 and 21-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites Palmatier and
Anselrode with regard to claims 31 and 32, adding APA with regard
to claims 2-12 and 21-30.
1While the statement of the rejection would appear to rely
on the “written description part of 35 U.S.C. 112, first
paragraph, the rationale for the rejection makes it clear that
the examiner is relying on the “enablement” portion of 35 U.S.C.
112. Accordingly, we will treat the rejection as being one of
lack of enablement.
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007