Appeal No. 2002-0585
Application No. 09/088,307
It appears to us that the artisan skilled in the art of PID
controllers would have no trouble determining the specific
parameters to be used in a specific system by tuning the PID
controller, the actual determination being no more than routine
experimentation.
The examiner’s response is to call for specific values of
the parameters but this demand is not reasonable in view of each
particular system having different tuned parameters. The
examiner also argues that for the artisan to determine those
parameters would constitute undue experimentation. However, we
find this argument unreasonable in view of the notoriety of PID
controllers and the routine manner known to artisans as to how to
tune the system to achieve the optimum values for the parameters,
or coefficients for the proportional, derivative and integral
factors in the PID controller equation.
Accordingly, since we find that the examiner did not have a
reasonable basis for challenging the sufficiency of the instant
disclosure or, to the extent there was a reasonable basis, that
appellants’ argument has clearly convincingly rebutted the
challenge, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 2-12 and
21-30 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph.
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007