Appeal No. 2006-0696
Application 90/005,546
The “means for altering” appears to be computer software that controls the alteration of
the sequence of steps (the order or timing) based on input from an operator and based on
monitoring of the steps by the program itself. It appears that the computer software alters the
sequence - not an operator. Thus, an operator that turns off or shuts down a computer would not
appear to be a “means for altering a sequence of said process steps in response to said progress
information and in response to information from an operator”. It would be the operator that
causes the “altering” of the sequence by shutting down the computer, and not the computer
through its software that recalculates the movements or performs the altering. In contrast to the
previous example, Lindsey does not appear to teach this feature - software that, based on input
from an operator and progress information, alters the timing or order of the steps to be
performed. At best, Lindsey teaches that an operator may shut down the system. To compare
Lindsey’s teaching to the subject matter claimed, it is important to know the metes and bounds of
the subject matter claimed. On the present record, it appears that an additional reference may be
required to reject claims containing this “altering” limitation for obviousness.
C. Decision
The examiner’s rejections of (1) claims 1-53 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)
by Isenhour, (2) claims 19-23, 27-28 and 49 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) by
Lindsey, (3) claims 24-26 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of Lindsey, and
(4) claims 1-18, 24-48 and 50-53 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007