Appeal 2006-2619
Application 10/935,566
Appellants’ contentions with respect to the teaching of both
Beiermann and Hayes are misplaced as indeed, claims 1 and 11 do not
exclude either a remote user interface or a boot up step in a software
program for controlling a welding procedure, and indeed, claim 11
specifically provides for the former.
Accordingly, based on our consideration of the totality of the record
before us, we have weighed the evidence of obviousness found in the
combined teachings of Niedereder, Beiermann, and Hayes with Appellants’
countervailing evidence of and argument for nonobviousness and conclude
that the claimed invention encompassed by appealed claims 1 through 21
would have been obvious as a matter of law under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The Examiner’s decision is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2005).
AFFIRMED
clj
Amin, Turocy & Calvin, LLP
1900 East 9TH Street, National City Center
24TH Floor
Cleveland, OH 44114
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Last modified: November 3, 2007