Appeal 2006-2619 Application 10/935,566 Claims 1 and 11 illustrate Appellants’ invention of a system that facilitates configuring a welder power supply during a welding procedure, and are representative of the claims on appeal: 1. A system that facilitates configuring a welder power supply during a welding procedure comprising: a component that receives a welding parameter; and a configuration component that automatically applies a welder configuration to the welder power supply based at least upon the welding parameter. 11. A system that facilitates configuring a welder power supply during a welding procedure comprising: a communications component that receives information from a remote system, the information comprising at least one of a welder configuration and a welding parameter; an analyzer that determines the welder configuration to employ, based at least in part upon the received information; and a configuration component that applies the welder configuration to the welder power supply. The references relied on by the examiner are: Beiermann US 6,479,792 B1 Nov. 12, 2002 Hayes US 6,504,131 B1 Jan. 7, 2003 Niedereder US 6,797,921 Sep. 28, 2004 The examiner has rejected appealed claims 1 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niedereder taken with either one of Beiermann or Hayes (Answer 3-6). Appellants principally argue independent claim 1 as representative of the claims as a group and further argue independent claim 11 (Br. 5 and 8; Reply Br. 2). Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claim 1 and, to the extent it is argued, claim 11. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2005). 2Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007