Appeal 2006-2619
Application 10/935,566
In any event, the Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the
art reading Niedereder would have recognized in considering the reference
that “the general teaching . . . to configure a welding system . . . would
include configuring a power supply,” and argues that this person would have
known that it was “conventional to use a computer network to configure a
power supply in a welding system” as established by the teachings of
Beiermann and Hayes (Answer 4).
Appellants submit that Niedereder “does not teach or suggest
communication with or configuration of a welder power supply, let alone
such configuration being based upon the welding parameter” as claimed
(Br., e.g., 5:12-14; 7: 22-23; Reply Br., e.g., 3: 15-16). Appellants contend
that
[t]he claimed subject matter relates generally to an architecture that
facilitates applying a welder configuration to a welder power
supply during a welding procedure. More specifically, the
architecture can, e.g., configure a welding power supply to perform
more than one welding task. For example, if a first welding
procedure requires a different welder power supply configuration
than a second welding procedure, the architecture can select a new
configuration and update the welder power supply with the new
configuration during a welding procedure. . . . In addition, the
architecture can analyze, e.g., a welding parameter and then
determine which welder configuration (e.g., selected the welder
configurations in the store) to employ for a particular welding
procedure. [Reply Br. 2-3.]
In this respect, Appellants argue that appealed independent claim 11 requires
“an analyzer that determines the welder configuration to employ, based at
least in part upon the received information” (id. 3).
Appellants argue that Beiermann and Hayes do not cure the deficiency
of Niedereder (Br. 5-8). According to Appellants, “[Beiermann] is silent
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007