Ex parte Farrington et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 31, 1997

07772998 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 31, 1997)

Application for patent filed October 8, 1991.1
1
THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
(1) was not written for publication in a law journal and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 27
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte RONALD L. FARRINGTON,
LARRY J. SERBOUSEK,
ANDY A. HAUN
and
EARL J. TESSMER
_____________
Appeal No. 95-4135
Application 07/772,9981
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS, and JERRY SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-4135
Application 07/772,998
As indicated in the Advisory Action (paper number 21), the2
amendment to claims 5, 9, 11 and 21 had the effect of overcoming
the indefiniteness rejection of claims 5, 9, 11, 12 and 21.
2
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 9, 11 through 17 and 21. In an Amendment After Final2
(paper number 19-1/2), claims 5, 9, 11 and 21 were amended.
The disclosed invention relates to a communication
interface for circuit breakers that are connected to a power bus
in a circuit breaker distribution panel. Each circuit breaker is
designated by at least one coded signal that it receives via the
communication bus, and each of the circuit breakers interrupts
and establishes an associated current path. A decoding means
associated with each of the circuit breakers determines
correspondence between the coded signal and a circuit breaker.
If correspondence is found, then the decoding means associated
with the circuit breaker returns a response signal via a coupling
means to the communication bus.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and
it reads as follows:
1. A communication interface system for circuit
breakers which are connected to a power bus in a circuit breaker
distribution panel, the system comprising:
a plurality of circuit breakers mounted within the
circuit breaker distribution panel, wherein each of said circuit
breakers is designated by at least one coded signal and each of
Appeal No. 95-4135
Application 07/772,998
3
said circuit breakers includes means for interrupting and
establishing an associated current path and includes decoding
means for decoding its designated coded signal and returning a
response signal;
a data communication bus, arranged adjacent the
plurality of circuit breakers and within the distribution panel,
for carrying coded signals to and from the associated circuit
breaker’s decoding means; and
a plurality of coupling means, each of said coupling
means located within the distribution panel and physically
connected to the data communication bus and an associated circuit
breaker and arranged for coupling the associated circuit
breaker’s decoding means to the data communication bus.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Geyer et al. (Geyer) 3,842,249 Oct. 15, 1974
Breimesser et al. (Breimesser) 4,175,238 Nov. 20, 1979
Borona 4,308,511 Dec. 29, 1981
Wilson et al. (Wilson) 4,338,647 July 6, 1982
Miller et al. (Miller) 4,535,332 Aug. 13, 1985
Brifman et al. (Brifman) 4,556,882 Dec. 3, 1985
Hedman et al. (Hedman) 4,819,180 Apr. 4, 1989
Brodsky et al. (Brodsky) 4,918,566 Apr. 17, 1990
Claims 1 through 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Borona, Brifman, Geyer, Brodsky,
Breimesser, Miller and Hedman.
Claims 7 through 9, 11 through 17 and 21 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the references
applied to claims 1 through 6 in further view of Wilson.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Appeal No. 95-4135
Application 07/772,998
4
We will reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1
through 9, 11 through 17 and 21 because we agree with appellants'
argument throughout the brief that the applied references neither
teach nor would they have suggested to the skilled artisan a
decoder associated with a circuit breaker that decodes a coded
signal for that circuit breaker, and that returns a response
signal after decoding the coded signal.
At the outset, we note that appellants argue (Brief,
page 7) that "[t]he mere fact that a large number of references
are needed is a strong indication of nonobviousness." In
response to this argument, we agree with the examiner (Answer,
page 14) that "the number of references does not have a bearing
on the propriety of the rejection; theoretically such could be
infinite." See Ex parte Fine, 1927 Dec. Comm'r Pats. 84 (Comm’r
Pats. 1926).
The load management circuit breaker of Borona discloses
two circuit breakers 14 and 15 that can be locally controlled in
response to current overloads, or that can be externally
controlled via a control signal from an external power source
transmitted by power line communication signals 93 (column 5,
lines 11 through 14). During local control of the circuit
breakers, a current overload will cause movable contacts 22 to
Appeal No. 95-4135
Application 07/772,998
5
move away from stationary contacts 21 to break the circuit
(column 4, lines 26 through 37). During external control of the
circuit breakers, the external control signal to solenoid coil 49
causes the plunger 48 to retract and pull movable contacts 43 and
44 away from the stationary contacts 37 and 40, respectively, to
break the circuit (column 4, lines 38 through 58). We do not
agree with the examiner's conclusion (Answer, page 4) that in
Borona "the circuit breaker is designated by at least one coded
signal" and "the wiring provided in the arrangement exemplified
by Borona is capable of carrying response signals from the
circuit breaker, such as claimed, as well as coded signals to
such circuit breaker." As indicated supra, nothing of the sort
occurs in Borona.
With respect to Brifman, the examiner contends that
"[e]ach circuit breaker has an individual electronic circuit to
receive coded command signals to turn the breaker on or off, and
also sense the state of the breaker contacts and upon request
send back status codes, which are response signals (Abstract)"
(Answer, page 5). A coded command signal is not sent to the
circuit breaker, but a coded status signal is sent back to the
I/O circuit. The coded status signal is decoded by decoder 23
(Figure 2 and column 6, lines 31 through 68) before storage in
Appeal No. 95-4135
Application 07/772,998
6
memory 25. Thus, Brifman does not send coded signals to a
breaker, and a decoder is not located at the breaker to receive
nonexistent coded signals.
Although Geyer may in fact disclose "that it is
conventional to utilize a data bus for switching device/circuit
breaker data communication, and that such devices may be uniquely
addressed" (Answer, page 6), the applied references still lack
the claimed decoding means associated with a circuit breaker to
receive a coded signal and to send back a response signal.
Brodsky discloses bidirectional control of circuit
breakers, but not in the manner set forth in the claims on
appeal.
Breimesser discloses a return line (column 3, lines 12
through 28), but we agree with appellants' argument (Brief, page
11) that "the outgoing and return lines are the outgoing and
return of current lines for the 'low voltage circuit'" and that
"Breimesser does not teach the use of a decoding means which
decodes its designated coded signal and which returns a response
signal."
We agree with the examiner (Answer, page 7) that Figure
1 of Miller discloses "a system which includes a decoder,
transceiver or the like (56) connected to a data bus or the like
Appeal No. 95-4135
Application 07/772,998
7
(58) for control of loads," and bidirectional communication via
the transceiver, but we also agree with the appellants' argument
(Brief, page 12) that "[t]here is no teaching whatsoever in
Miller of a circuit breaker having a decoding means for decoding
a designated coded signal and returning a response signal, as
claimed in the present application."
The examiner's contentions (Answer, pages 8 and 9) to
the contrary notwithstanding, there is no evidence in Hedman that
lines 46 and 46' carry signals to and from the circuit breakers.
We agree with appellants' argument (Brief, page 13) that "lines
46 and 46' represent power lines and having [sic, have] nothing
to do with data communication (column 4, lines 52-59 of Hedman)."
Wilson discloses optical coupling in circuit breakers
(columns 19 and 20), but not in the manner set forth in the
claims on appeal.
In summary, we agree with the appellants' argument
(Brief, page 16 and 17) that the applied references neither teach
nor would they have suggested to the skilled artisan the claimed
invention, that the examiner has resorted to hindsight to
reconstruct the claimed invention, and that the obviousness
rejections should be reversed.
DECISION
Appeal No. 95-4135
Application 07/772,998
8
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through
9, 11 through 17 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JERRY SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-4135
Application 07/772,998
9
Larry L. Golden
Square D Co.
Executive Plaza
Palatine, Illinois 60067