Appeal No. 2003-0729
Application 08/914,346
Seborg et al is cited to demonstrate the old and well known use
of said controllers. Seborg teaches that which is notoriously
well known concerning feedback controllers” (answer, page 5).
The examiner goes on to conclude that “[i]t would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art to use the
controllers of Seborg et al as the control means in the apparatus
of Zhekov et al because said means are old and well known and
provide the necessary control for flow processes” (answer, page
6).
Seborg provides a general discussion of feedback
controllers. None of the illustrative examples used therein
pertains to a brewing process. Contrary to the position taken by
the examiner, Seborg, whether considered alone or in combination
with Zhekov, does not disclose, and would not have suggested,
controllers responsive to the particular limitations at issue in
independent claims 12 and 20. Hence, the combined teachings of
Zhekov and Seborg do not justify a conclusion that the
differences between the subject matter recited in claims 12 and
20 and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person having ordinary skill in the art.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007