Appellant loses in Ex parte Hartwig
As to the ordering of steps in a method claim
Appellants argue subsequent steps of claim 1, e.g., making a comparison and emitting an alarm, are rendered irrelevant if Preiss’s prior validation is followed. Appellants do not particularly argue the claim requires the steps be performed in any particular order. Absent such a claim requirement, we do not consider the method claimed as being so limited. See Baldwin Graphics Sys., Inc. v. Seibert, Inc., 512 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
As to obviousness
As to modifying Preiss by Mihai, the rejection relies on Preiss to give a warning and Mihai to make the warning audible. Ans. 16. Further, the Examiner cites to paragraph 0178 of Mihai as providing a “safety net of support” by emitting a sound alarm. Ans. 17. We find the combination of Preiss and Mihai to be supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).