Appeal No. 2006-1252 Page 6
Application No. 10/310,886
We do not agree with appellant. Scherer states (col. 2, ll. 6-9) that the data
exchange between the network computer 3 and local control devices 4 is normally
bidirectional, “so that corresponding data can also be transmitted to the local
control devices, for instance for the purpose of programming, or can be called
therefrom by the network computer.” The programming of the local control
devices that control the field devices and workstations constitutes control of the
field devices and workstations. In disclosing a manufacturing network system,
including a net server, for linking with local control devices associated with field
devices and work stations, Scherer would have provided ample suggestion to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention to utilize such a
network to monitor and control the work station(s) (fluid dispensing devices) of
Whitmore to attain the flexibility and variability discussed by Scherer (col. 6, last
para.).
With particular reference to claim 1, appellant (brief, p. 11) argues that
Whitmore fails to teach or suggest network software configuring said network
hardware to be recognized and function as a network server in the network. This
argument is not persuasive because the rejection of claim 1 is not based on
Whitmore alone but, rather, on Whitmore in view of Scherer. Nonobviousness
cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co.
Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed
above, the suggestion to use a manufacturing network including a net server to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007