Appeal 2006-2564
Application 10/259,743
As found by the Examiner (Answer 5), Skrovan teaches “the amount
of [a] supplied gas…controlled by any known gas controlling system (col. 7,
lines 34-38).” The Appellant has admitted that a programmable device,
system, or subsystem for carrying out such a function was conventional at
the time of the invention (Specification 8). Moreover, as indicated supra,
Calio teaches a timer embraced by the claimed programmable controller.
Given this knowledge, we determine that one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led to employ any conventional gas controlling system,
including the programmable controller or timer taught by Calio for the
purpose of controlling the amount of gas flowed into the cleaning apparatus
of Skrovan. Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner that Skrovan, Calio
and Aigo would have rendered the subject matter defined by claims 13, 17,
18, and 19 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Thus, for the factual findings and analyses set forth in the Answer and
above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting the claims on appeal
under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102(e) and 103.
V. ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
VI. TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013