Appeal No. 2003-0764
Application No. 09/660,797
holding that it would have been an obvious expedient to automate
that which has been done manually).
Appellants argue that Ackert does not compute heat quantities
to be removed by cooling for the individual section parts but
rather only at the beginning and end of the cooling system (Brief,
page 7). We agree.
The examiner construes the claims as not containing any
requirement that each individual section part “be measured and
computed individually, only that measurement equipment and a
computer program be employed.” Answer, page 4. The examiner finds
that Ackert “clearly describes determining the cooling profile to
be employed for each section of the rail to be cooled (id., citing
col. 8, ll. 22-29). The examiner reiterates that “[t]he appealed
claims do not limit the method to any particular process of
computing or determining the cooling profiles other than the [sic,
to] require that measuring equipment and a computer program be
employed” (id.). We disagree.
We determine that claim 1 on appeal clearly requires
“determining and computing heat quantities to be proportionally
removed from the different section parts in dependence on the
masses and temperatures thereof” (claim 1 on appeal, emphasis
added). The different section parts include the head, web and base
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007