Appeal 2007-1202
Application 10/847,052
transmitted between a welder and a remote site. Thus, we find ample evidence to
support the Examiner’s rejection of claim 33 as being anticipated by Niedereder.
Analysis related to obviousness rejection:
Initially we note that Appellants’ arguments directed to the obviousness
rejection, group claims 1 through 6, 8 through 21, and 23 through 32 together.
Independent claim 26 is the broadest claim in this group of claims. Thus, in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) we group claims 1 through 6, 8
through 21, and 23 through 32 together and select claim 26 as the representative
claim.
Claim 26 recites a method which includes performing one test sequence
based in part on a sensor input, determining whether an alarm condition exists and
sending a message to a remote system. As discussed supra, we find that Brown
teaches monitoring parameters of a welder, comparing the values to operating
limits, (see fact 9.) We consider a comparison of a measured value to an operating
limit to be a test. Further, as discussed supra, we find that the results of these tests
lead to an alarm condition which is indicated locally and relayed to a central
computer (remote location), (see facts 9 and 11.) Thus, Niedereder’s teaching of
signaling a remote computer is cumulative of Brown’s teaching of signaling a
remote computer and we find that Brown alone teaches the limitations of claim 26.
Appellants’ arguments on page 8 of the brief, that Brown “simply discusses
various audio-visual alarms that indicate when a parameter falls outside a
predetermined range” has not persuaded us of a difference between the test
sequence of claim 26 and Brown’s comparison step. Thus, we find ample evidence
to support the examiner’s rejection of claim 26.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013