Ex Parte Guldi - Page 9

                 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