Ex Parte Spear et al - Page 5

                 Appeal 2006-2619                                                                                   
                 Application 10/935,566                                                                             

                       Claim 11 is couched in the same preambular terms as well as the term                         
                 “component.”  This claim specifies that the component which receives                               
                 “welding parameter” information does so “from a remote system,” and that                           
                 the information received from the remote system is not so limited but                              
                 comprises “at least one of a welder configuration and a welding parameter.”                        
                 The specified any “analyzer” has the function of determining “the welder                           
                 configuration to employ” based on such information, but the claim language                         
                 specifies that the “communication component” can receive a “welder                                 
                 configuration” which is the same term used to define the configuration                             
                 applied to the welder power supply by the “configuration component.”                               
                 Thus, the function of the “analyzer” in this respect is unclear.1  In any event,                   
                 the “analyzer” and the “configuration component” can be the same system                            
                 “component” as Appellants have defined this term in the specification.                             
                       Thus, we interpret the claim language to encompass any system which                          
                 facilitates any step in configuring any part or element of any manner of                           
                 welder power supply at any point in a joining process, including any initial                       
                 step such as boot up, in configuring the power supply with respect to the                          

                                                                                                                   
                 1  The inconsistency with respect to the “welding configuration” received by                       
                 the “communication component” and the processing thereof by the                                    
                 “analyzer” component and further by the “configuration component” raises                           
                 issues under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, with respect to appealed                           
                 claim 11. However, we determine that a reasonable, conditional                                     
                 interpretation of the claim language is that claim 11 further encompasses                          
                 processing “a welding parameter” received from “a remote system,” and we                           
                 consider claim 11 in this respect in order to resolve prior art issues in this                     
                 appeal, thus avoiding piecemeal prosecution. Cf. In re Steele, 305 F.2d 859,                       
                 862-63, 134 USPQ 292, 295 (CCPA 1962); Ex parte Saceman, 27 USPQ2d                                 
                 1472, 1474 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1993).                                                            
                                                         5                                                          


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007