Ex parte Brooks

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 19, 2002

08789659 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 19, 2002)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written for
publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte STANLEY J. BROOKS
____________
Appeal No. 2000-0368
Application No. 08/789,659
____________
HEARD: January 22, 2002
____________
Before RUGGIERO, DIXON, and LEVY, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 9, and
17-25. We note that claim 19 was rejected in the final rejection at page 3, but was not
addressed by the appellant in the brief. Furthermore, claim 19 has not been rejected or its
status addressed by the examiner in the answer. Neither has it been canceled by
appellant. Therefore, we do not address this claim in this decision.
We REVERSE.
Appeal No. 2000-0368
Application No. 08/789,659
2
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to an arcing fault detection system for a secondary
line of a current transformer. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary claim 17, which is reproduced below.
17. A system for detecting arcing faults in an electrical distribution
system including a line conductor carrying an electrical current between a
power source and a load [sic ,] said system comprising:
a current transformer coupled to said line conductor, said current
transformer including at least one secondary line carrying a secondary
current less than the electrical current carried on said line conductor,
a sensor coupled to one of said secondary lines for monitoring the
secondary current to detect the occurrence of an arcing fault signal in said
line conductor, said sensor producing a rate-of-change signal representing
the rate of change of said secondary current, and
means for generating an arcing-fault-detection signal in response to
said rate-of-change signal demonstrating characteristics of an arcing fault.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Beihoff et al. (Beihoff) 5,206,596 Apr. 27, 1993
MacKenzie et al. (MacKenzie) 5,459,630 Oct. 17, 1995
Appeal No. 2000-0368
Application No. 08/789,659
3
Claims 1, 9, 17, 18, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Beihoff. Claims 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Beihoff in view of MacKenzie.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final rejection
(Paper No. 12, mailed June 19, 1998), examiner's answer (Paper No. 21, mailed Jan 20,
1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief
(Paper No. 18, filed November 23, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 24, filed May 21,
1999) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner maintains that Beihoff teaches a sensor (resistor 162) coupled to one
of the secondary lines for monitoring the rate of change of the electric current in the
secondary line, but Beihoff does not disclose that the sensor produces a signal
representing the rate of change of the electric current in the secondary line. (See final
Appeal No. 2000-0368
Application No. 08/789,659
4
rejection at page 3.) The examiner further maintains that the resistor 162 relied upon in
Beihoff is considered to be a sensor in that it will sense and monitor the current flowing
through it and if the resistor was hooked-up to a meter one could actually see the voltage
and current changes. (See final rejection at page 5.) The examiner admits that the
resistor 162 does not produce a signal, but the examiner relies on the term “representing”
in the claim. The examiner argues that “one could argue that the resistor 162 of Beihoff et
al. does indeed produce a signal representing the rate of change of said secondary
current, since such current passes through said resistor.” (See final rejection at page 5
and see also answer at page 4.)
Appellant argues that the language of independent claim 17 requires “a sensor
coupled to one of said secondary lines for monitoring the secondary current to detect the
occurrence of an arcing fault signal in said line conductor, said sensor producing a
rate-of-change signal representing the rate of change of said secondary current”
(emphasis by appellant) and that the terms “rate of change” and “producing” require an
active element rather than the examiner’s passive element resistor 162. (See brief at
pages 13-15.) We agree with appellant. Furthermore, we find that while Beihoff teaches
the use of the second derivative signal, the examiner’s reliance upon the load resistor 162
would not produce a signal indicative of the rate of change of current. The
Appeal No. 2000-0368
Application No. 08/789,659
5
mere ability of the skilled artisan to be able to measure that value, if desired, does not in
our mind establish the requisite motivation to modify the teachings of Beihoff to use an
additional sensor. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established a prima facie
case of obviousness based on the teachings of Beihoff alone, and we will not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 17 and its dependent claims 9 and 18. Similarly, we will not
sustain the rejection of independent claim 24 and dependent claims 1 and 25.
The examiner relies on the teachings of MacKenzie to suggest the use of a test line
coupled to the sensor in the same manner as said secondary line and a test signal
coupled to the sensor. (See final rejection at pages 4-5.) Appellant argues that
MacKenzie does not remedy the deficiency in Beihoff alone and that MacKenzie does not
teach or suggest the use of a test line which is coupled to a sensor in the same manner as
the secondary line. (See brief at page 19.) We agree with appellant that MacKenzie does
not remedy the deficiency noted in Beihoff alone and that MacKenzie does not teach or
suggest the use of a test line which is coupled to a sensor in the same manner as the
secondary line. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 20-23.
CONCLUSION
Appeal No. 2000-0368
Application No. 08/789,659
6
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 9, 17, 18, and 20-
25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
STUART S. LEVY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
jld/vsh
Appeal No. 2000-0368
Application No. 08/789,659
7
KAREEM M. IRFAN
SQUARE D COMPANY
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
1415 SOUTH ROSELLE ROAD
PALATINE, IL 60067