Appeal 2006-2619
Application 10/935,566
regarding a welder power supply” and thus would not have disclosed
configuring such a supply, only “configuring a remote user interface to
allow remote operation of the machine by a user (see col. 6, ll. 16-23),”
arguing that “configuring a remote user interface to allow remote access is
not the same as configuring a power supply” or as “configuring the power
supply automatically” (Br. 5-6). Hayes is said to “[relate] to a welding-type
power supply with a boot loader, wherein the boot loader, at power up, can
access a network to check for and load software updates” (id. 6). We noted
above Appellants’ contention with respect to the “analyzer component” of
claim 11.
The Examiner maintains that Beiermann would have disclosed that
operational parameters of a welding machine include voltage and current
settings, which indicates a “power supply,” the disclosed “‘wave-form
signature’ would apply . . . [to] the welding power supply” and the disclosed
effect thereon by software clearly establishes that “the networked computer
in [Beiermann] is configuring the power supply” (Answer 5-6). The
Examiner further points out that Hayes would have disclosed that welding
system 100 “includes a power control module 102” as a source of welding-
type power (id. 6).
We find substantial evidence in the record supporting the examiner’s
position. We find that Niedereder would have acknowledged that
“[m]ethods of controlling welding devices and current sources as well as a
control system needed for this purpose are known, in which various welding
parameters such as a welding current . . . can be set from an input and/or
output device” and that a purpose of the invention disclosed in the reference
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007