Appeal No. 2006-0696
Application 90/005,546
finished moving a sample to plate 1 of a first procedure, it moves to plate 2 of another procedure
at the ten minute mark. The robotic arm then moves back to plate 1 just prior to the twenty
minute mark, before the robotic arm moves back to plate 2, then on to plate 3 of yet another
procedure. Thus, Lindsey’s robotic arm appears to interleave the various steps (stages) of a
plurality of independent analysis procedures performed on the different plates.
Independent claim 27 and means for altering
Independent claim 27 recites “means for altering a sequence of said process steps in
response to said progress information and in response to information from an operator,” a
limitation that appellant argues Lindsey fails to describe (Brief at 25). The word “means” is
employed and structure is recited to perform the alteration of the sequence of the process steps.
Thus, there is a presumption that §112, ¶ 6 applies.
Applicants’ specification teaches that adjustments to timing may be made by an operator
even as the process is running, provided that the steps in the process which are to have their
timing altered have not been reached. (Col. 13, line 66, to col. 14, line 60). The specification
also teaches that steps may be added or reconfigured while the program is running and that the
computer will recalculate all of the movements to complete the run and insure that there is no
time interference created by the modification. (Emphasis added) (Col. 17, lines 17-24). Thus,
“altering a sequence” of steps as described includes altering the timing of the steps or altering the
order of steps. The computer is capable of monitoring the tasks and the timing of the tasks.
(Col. 16, lines 53-56). According to the specification, the “means” that performs the altering is
computer software. (Col. 17, lines 13-24).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007