Appeal 2006-2381
Application 09/779,125
characteristics be controlled in one millisecond increments – or any other
increment less than 1000 milliseconds – as Appellant seems to suggest. All
that the claim requires is that the indicial response characteristics be
controlled “in units of milliseconds” – a control that is fully met by a 1-5
second control. Even assuming that Egan’s system only enabled control in
one second (1000 millisecond) increments, the scope and breadth of the
claim language simply does not preclude such increments. For at least this
reason, the Examiner has established at least a prima facie case of
obviousness for independent claim 12 based on the collective teachings of
Egan, Pettit, and Okumoto.
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting independent claim 12 under § 103. Since Appellant has not
separately argued the patentability of dependent claims 13, 15, and 16, these
claims fall with independent claim 12. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). See also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(vii).
CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellant has not 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.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013