Appeal 2006-2619
Application 10/935,566
We affirm.
We refer to the Answer and to the Brief and Reply Brief for a
complete exposition of the positions advanced by the Examiner and
Appellants.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the record on this appeal and based
thereon find ourselves in agreement with the supported position advanced by
the Examiner that, prima facie, the claimed system that facilitates
configuring a welder power supply during a welding procedure encompassed
by appealed claims 1 and 11 would have been obvious over the combined
teachings of Niedereder, Beiermann, and Hayes to one of ordinary skill in
this art at the time the claimed invention was made. Accordingly, since a
prima facie case of obviousness has been established by the examiner, we
again evaluate all of the evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness based
on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to the weight of
Appellants’ arguments in the Brief and Reply Brief. See generally, In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In
re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The principal issues before us require that we interpret claim 1 by
giving the terms thereof the broadest reasonable interpretation in their
ordinary usage in context as they would be understood by one of ordinary
skill in the art, in light of the written description in the specification unless
another meaning is intended by Appellants as established therein, and
without reading into the claim any disclosed limitation or particular
embodiment. See, e.g., In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007