Appeal 2006-2619
Application 10/935,566
control and/or evaluation unit 4 to activate individual components of
welding device 1 (Niedereder, col. 7, ll. 5-15).
We further agree with the Examiner’s findings with respect to the
teachings of Beiermann (Beiermann, e.g., col. 3, ll. 38-43, and col. 5, l. 66,
to col. 7, l. 3) and Hayes (Hayes, e.g., abstract, col. 1, ll. 14-17, col. 2,
ll. 6-10, col. 3, l. 55, to col. 4, l. 3, and col. 4, ll. 20-44).
Thus, contrary to Appellants’ position, it is well established on this
record by Niedereder alone, and certainly as further evinced by Beiermann
and Hayes, that one of ordinary skill in this art armed with the knowledge in
this art would have considered that a method and system for controlling a
welding device includes a power supply and thus, this person would have
reasonably considered the disclosure in Niedereder which we pointed out
above to disclose such a system with components for controlling such any
welding device including its power supply. Indeed, it is well settled that a
reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been
expected to draw therefrom, see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23
USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968), presuming skill on the part of this
person. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir.
1985). In this respect, we find that the input and/or output device 22 and
control and/or evaluation unit 4 components of Niedereder’s system
correspond to the two components specified in claim 1, and the three
components specified in claim 11, as we interpreted these claims above.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007