Appeal No. 2005-0968 Page 6
Application No. 09/998,343
manufacturing facility. While we see some merit to Appellants’ argument that
Athavale is not sufficient to teach customer control of complex process steps (such
as controlling doping levels), that is not the claim we have before us. We find that
Athavale addresses and solves the problem of allowing customer control of simple
process operations and as pointed out by the Examiner, there is more than
sufficient motivation at column 10 of Athavale to use Athavale’s improvement in
other manufacturing control systems to allow the customer to make simple process
changes irregardless of the overall complexity of the manufacturing process.
Therefore, for the reasons discussed above, we will sustain the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have sustained the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 1-12.
AFFIRMED
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MAHSHID D. SAADAT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
ALLEN R. MACDONALD )
Administrative Patent Judge )
ARM/lbg
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007