Appeal 2006-2381
Application 09/779,125
ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner failed to establish that
controlling a heating control means’ indicial response characteristics in units
of milliseconds as claimed would have been obvious to the skilled artisan in
view of a known control in units of seconds?
FINDINGS OF FACT
At the outset, we note that the Examiner’s factual findings regarding
the specific teachings of the cited references to Egan, Pettit, and Okumoto
(Answer 3-5) are not in dispute except with respect to the limitation of claim
12 calling for controlling indicial response characteristics of the heating
control means in units of milliseconds. See Br. 3-5. Accordingly, we will
adopt the Examiner’s factual findings regarding the cited references as they
pertain to the undisputed claim limitations.
Egan describes a spectrophotometer including an atomizer for
receiving a sample to be analyzed. The atomizer is heated by applying
electric power to a workhead 2 via a control means. A feedback circuit is
connected between the atomizer and the control means that approximates the
heating response characteristics of the atomizer. Significantly, the time
taken to reach operating temperature when voltage is applied to the
workhead depends upon the heating response characteristics of the particular
workhead and may be within the range of 1-5 seconds (Egan, abstract; col.
3, ll. 1-48; Fig. 1).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013