Ex Parte Dodge et al - Page 10

              Appeal 2007-1202                                                                                                
              Application 10/847,052                                                                                          

                      We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments which discuss limitations to                              
              the welder performing internal diagnostics and a health status as claim 26 contains                             
              no such limitations.  While we note that independent claim 1 does contain such                                  
              limitations, Appellants have not elected under 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) to                                  
              separately argue independent claim 1.  Thus we affirm the rejection of claims 1                                 
              through 6, 8 through 21, and 23 through 32 for the reasons discussed supra with                                 
              respect to claim 26.  Nonetheless, we provide the following further analysis                                    
              directed to claim 1.  Claim 1 recites performing a test sequence to facilitate welder                           
              diagnostics based upon information received from the sensor component.  We find                                 
              that Brown teaches two tests which involve information received from the sensors,                               
              in the monitoring mode the test, compares sensor input with operating limits, (see                              
              fact 9) and upon start up the processor performs tests to see if the sensors are faulty                         
              or not, (see fact 13.)  Claim 1 also recites a diagnostic component which                                       
              determines a health status of the welder based in part on the welder diagnostics,                               
              information received from a sensor component and the control component.  We                                     
              find that Brown teaches that the microprocessor of the welder performs a self                                   
              diagnostics test and a test of the welder’s transducers.  (See facts 12 and 13.)                                
              These tests are performed by software being executed by the microprocessor and                                  
              as such meet Appellants’ claimed component.  While Brown does not disclose                                      
              transmitting the results of the diagnostics tests to the remote location, we consider                           
              Brown’s teaching that other alarms should be transmitted to a remote location and                               
              Niedereder’s teaching of using a remote diagnosis and error checking, to provide                                
              ample evidence that one would be motivated to transmit the results of the                                       
              diagnostics tests to a remote location.  Thus, even if claim 1 were separately                                  
              argued, we find ample evidence to support the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.                                  


                                                             10                                                               


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013