Appeal No. 2005-0108
Application No. 10/099,828
1362,1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Therefore, we look to the
language of independent claim 1.
Independent claim 1 requires “processor circuitry coupled to the loop interface
circuitry and adapted to provide global internet-compatible data to the loop interface
circuitry for transmission upon the process control loop; and a memory coupled to the
processor circuitry and adapted to store data related to global internet communication.”
We find that Burns teaches the use of the internet for transmission of software to the
microprocessor (Figures 1, 6, and 7 and column 34, lines 50-54). Therefore, we
rationalize that if the system can receive data and software via the internet as a means
of communication, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention (and within the level of ordinary skill) to also transmit monitoring
data via the internet using global internet address and that these addresses would
necessarily have been stored within the system memory.
While the examiner has not relied upon the above specific teaching in Burns, we
do agree with the examiner’s findings that the teachings of Papadopoulos with respect
to the use of internet communication and the basic structure of the communication
would have suggested the combination as maintained by the examiner. We find that
the suggestion of the use of the internet in Burns at column 34 clearly suggests the
combination of the teachings of Burns and Papadopoulos.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007