Appeal 2007-1202
Application 10/847,052
Examiner’s rejection is set forth on pages 4 through 9 of the Answer. Throughout
the opinion we make reference to the Brief and Reply Brief (filed May 23, 2006
and Nov. 16, 2006 respectively), and the Answer (mailed Oct. 10, 2006) for the
respective details thereof.
ISSUES
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 33 is
in error. Appellants assert that claim 33 recites a signal comprising resident
diagnosis information internal to the welder and that Niedereder does not teach
such a signal. (Br. 4.)
Further, Appellants contend that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1 through 6, 8 through 21, and 23 through 32 is in error. Appellants argue
that Niedereder does not teach or suggest a control component for performing a
test sequence to facilitate welder diagnostics or a diagnostic component that
performs welder internal diagnostics. (Br 6.) Further, Appellants argue that
Brown’s teaching of a self-diagnostic test does not indicate performing welder
internal diagnostics or determining a health status. (Br 7.) With respect to claims
26 and 28, Appellants argue that Brown’s teaching of alarm signals does not meet
the claimed step of performing at least one test sequence based upon a sensor
input. (Br. 8.)
The Examiner contends that the anticipation rejection is proper. The
Examiner states, Niedereder teaches that data can be read from the welder to a
remote site.
The Examiner also contends that the obviousness rejection is proper. The
Examiner states Niedereder teaches facilitating diagnostics. (Answer 18.) The
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013