Appeal No. 2002-0585
Application No. 09/088,307
While appellants argue that Palmatier teaches no change in a
control characteristic of a controller, based on a change in a
production condition, appellants have presented no convincing
argument as to why the examiner’s interpretation of speed change
as a change in control characteristic of a controller based on a
change in a production condition is in error.
Appellants argue that in Palmatier, the process control
computer 70 is programmed and, once programmed, the program runs
continuously and there is no change in the way the process
control computer operates or behaves. However, claim 31 does not
preclude the use of a programmed computer and there is nothing in
the claim language that requires a change in the way a process
control computer operates.
While appellants also argue that there is no suggestion to
modify one of the applied references in any way with the other,
it is unclear what is missing from Palmatier that needs to be
modified by Anselrode.
In the reply brief, appellants argue that the control
systems of the applied references do not adjust the registration,
but instead adjust positions of screen templates, doctor blade
positions and doctor blade pressure, as well as setting with
regard to the feed of the printing ink. Accordingly, argue
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007