Appeal 2006-2619
Application 10/935,566
1364, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004); In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048,
1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Zletz, 893 F.2d
319, 321-22, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
The plain language of claim 1 requires any manner of system of
components that facilitates in any manner the configuration to any extent of
any of the parts and elements of any manner of welder power supply during
any manner of welding procedure. Appellants define the term “welding
procedure” in the written description in the specification as “[referring] to a
step or steps involved in a joining process and can include consumables to
be used in the process along with settings for various aspects of a welding
system before, during and/or after the joining process” (Specification 5:
[0025]). Appellants illustrate this term with the language “[f]or example,
some of these aspects relate to control of power and waveforms supplied to
an electrode” (id.).
The system thus specified in claim 1 comprises at least any manner of
component that receives any manner of welding parameter, such as any
manner of power or waveform settings, and any manner of a configuration
component that automatically, that is, without external control, provides any
manner of configuration to the power supply based at least to some extent on
said welding parameter. In this respect, Appellants define the term
“component” in the written description in the specification as “[referring] to
a [sic] electronic and/or computer-related entity, either hardware, a
combination of hardware and software, software, or software in execution”
(Specification 4: [0023]).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007