Appeal 2007-2911
Application 10/454,350
REVERSE both rejections presented in this appeal essentially for the
reasons stated in the Brief, Reply Brief, and those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that both Ptchelintsev and
Perryman disclose systems including all the components required by claim
15 on appeal, namely, an acoustic probe, an excitation element, and a
controller, which are all in communication with each other and used for the
purpose of analyzing the quality of spot welds (Answer 3-4 and 10).
However, we agree with Appellants that a general purpose computer in
effect becomes a special purpose computer once it is programmed to
perform particular functions (Reply Br. 4). See In re Alappat, 33 F.3d 1526,
1545, 31 USPQ2d 1545, 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Examiner has failed to
show that the controllers of either reference accomplish any of the functions
listed in claim 15 on appeal (also listed in the Answer 7, 9-10). To the
contrary, the Examiner admits that neither reference specifically teaches
performing the claimed functions (Answer 7 and 9). Therefore, we cannot
sustain either ground of rejection presented in this appeal.
The decision of the Examiner is REVERSED.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We REMAND this application to the jurisdiction of the Examiner
for action consistent with our remarks below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(a)(1)(2005).
The Examiner and Appellants should specifically determine the basis,
if any, in the original disclosure for claim 15, which is not an original claim
but was added by Amendment. The Examiner should ensure that the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013