BPAI rejects examiner's obviousness argument in Steinhauser

The BPAI did NOT sustain an obviousness rejection by the examiner in the case Ex parte Steinhauser:

None of Lynam, Eck, and Moe discloses determining differences in resistances between nodes of a grid and controlling an amount of power provided to each of the nodes based on such differences, as required in independent claims 1, 8, and 10. Indeed, the Examiner does not address this aspect of the claims or explain how the combined teachings of Lynam and Moe or the combined teachings of Eck and Moe render obvious a heater system or method as claimed including these features. Thus, Appellants are correct that the combination of Moe with either Lynam or Eck as proposed by the Examiner would not lead one of ordinary skill in the art to the claimed invention, and particularly a heater system or method in which the differences in resistance between the nodes are determined to control the amount of power provided to a heating surface. See App. Br. 8-9. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-12, 14-16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lynam or Eck in view of Moe.

In the same case, an anticipation rejection was sustained:

For the above reasons, Appellants’ arguments do not identify error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 as anticipated by Kahn. We sustain the rejection.