Ex parte MATSUDA et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 19, 1997

08077993 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 19, 1997)

Application for patent filed June 18, 1993.1
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 23
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte Shin-Ichiro Matsuda
and Tomoatsu Ino

_____________
Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,9931
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before URYNOWICZ, MARTIN and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
URYNOWICZ, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This appeal is from the final rejection of claims 1-12,
Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
2
14-16 and 19-22, all the claims pending in the application.
The invention pertains to a method and apparatus for
determining the electrical wiring state of electric wiring.
Claims 1, 11 and 21 are illustrative and read as follows:
1. A method of determining an electric wiring state,
comprising the steps of:
feeding at least one pulse voltage signal into one of
two lines short-circuited at their two source portions;
detecting the pulse voltage signal at two end portions
corresponding to the two source portions; and
discriminating wiring state between the two source
portions and the corresponding two end portions upon a comparison
of polarities between the fed pulse voltage signal and the
detected signal.
11. An apparatus for determining an electrical wiring
state, comprising:
an oscillation device for feeding at least one pulse voltage
signal into one of two lines short-circuited at their two source
portions;
a discrimination device for detecting the signal at two end
portions corresponding to the two source portions and
discriminating polarities of the fed pulse voltage signal and the
detected signal;
wherein said discrimination device includes
a polarity distinction circuit adapted to sense a plus
element and minus element of the fed pulse voltage signal
from the two end portions to thereby distinguish a straight
polarity when the order of the elements are the same to that
from said oscillation device and a reversed polarity when
Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
3
the order of the elements are opposed to that from said
oscillation device;
a silence distinction circuit to compare the signal
from the lines with the pulse voltage signals from said
oscillation device to thereby issue a discrimination as
there is no signal when it does not have a confirmation that
the pulse signals originates from said oscillation device;
and
a voltage value measurement circuit adapted to confirm
voltage values at end portions connected to the two lines
and an electric power line with predetermined values.
21. A system for determining an electric wiring state in
first and second conductors having first and second source
portions and end portions, the first and second source portions
being short-circuited to ground potential, comprising:
an oscillator connected to one of the first and second
conductors, generating a pulse signal conducted by the one of the
first and second conductors in first and second directions as
first and second pulse signals;
a voltage measure circuit connected to said first and second
conductors, detecting the first and second pulse signals at the
first and second end portions of the first and second conductors,
respectively; and
means for discriminating the electric wiring state between
the first and second source portions and the first and second end
portions by comparing a difference in polarity between the first
and second pulse signals and the pulse signal.
The reference relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness is:
Metcalf et al. 4,445,085 April 24, 1984
The appealed claims stand rejected as follows:
Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
The examiner's answer is identified in the upper right2
hand corner of page 1 as Paper No. 19. That designation appears
erroneous because there is no physical paper entered in the file
as Paper No. 18 and appellants’ brief and reply brief are marked
as Paper Nos. 17 and 19, respectively. Furthermore, in the table
of contents of appellants’ application, Paper No. 18 is
identified as the "Examiner's Answer".
4
a) claims 11, 12, 14-16, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as being based on a specification which fails to
comply with the enablement requirement of this section of the
statute.
b) claims 1-10, 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Metcalf et al.
The respective positions of the examiner and the appellant
with regard to the propriety of these rejections are set forth in
the final rejection (Paper No. 10) and the examiner's answer
(Paper No. 18) and the appellant's brief and reply brief (Paper
Nos. 17 and 19) .2
The Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
a) Claims 21 and 22:
Claims 21 and 22 require that an oscillator be connected to
a conductor. The examiner's position is that the term
Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
5
"connected" requires an actual contact between the oscillator and
conductor. Whereas appellants’ disclosure does not show
oscillator 22 actually in contact with the neutral conductor N
but connected to the conductor through trans connection device
21, it is the examiner's position that claims 21 and 22 are based
on a specification which fails to comply with the enablement
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. We reverse the
rejection.
The term "connected" does not require actual contact between
connected elements as asserted by the examiner. The accepted
definition of the term is restricted to neither a direct nor an
indirect connection, and it is therefore applicable to an
indirect connection. Ullstrand v. Coons, 147 F.2d 698, 700,
64 USPQ 580, 581 (CCPA 1945).
b) Claims 11, 12 and 14-16:
The examiner contends that these claims are deficient
because there are no details of a circuit in the disclosure
showing how to implement the silence distinction circuit. The
examiner's answer states at page 3 that "Claims 11-12, 14-16 and
21-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
explained in paper 10." Paper No. 10 indicates at page 2 that
claim 11 has been amended to recite a silence distinction circuit
Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
6
that has been objected to before as not being enabled in the
specification and that claims 11, 12 and 14-16 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for the reasons set forth in
the objection to the specification. The examiner's previous
rejection indicated, inter alia, that the specification is
objected to under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to
provide an enabling disclosure for the circuitry capable of
performing the function of the silence distinction circuit
recited in claim 17 (Paper No. 7, page 3). We reverse the
rejection.
The examiner has provided no more than the observation that
appellant has failed to provide specific circuitry for the
distinction circuit and the conclusion that this failure renders
the specification non-enabling with respect to the above claims.
However, patents are often granted to applicants where the
details of apparatus for performing known electronic functions
are not disclosed. Such apparatus includes counters and
comparators, even central processing units (CPU's). Patents are
not production documents. Here, it was incumbent on the examiner
to set forth a reasonable basis to conclude that one skilled in
Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
7
the art would not have been able to carry out the claimed
invention and he did not do so. In re Eynde, 480 F.2d 1364,
1370, 178 USPQ 470, 474 (CCPA 1973).
The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103
a) Appellants' Invention:
Appellants disclose a method and apparatus for determining
the electrical wiring state of electrical wiring. An application
of the invention is the detection of faulty house wiring.
Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
8
With respect to FIG. 1, appellants disclose electric power
lines E, a ground line G and a neutral line N. Oscillator 22
feeds at least one voltage pulse into an electric line N. Line N
has a source portion short circuited to the source portion of
line G at ground potential. Induced voltage P1 advances along
line N to the end portion thereof and induced voltage P2 of
opposite polarity advances along line G to the end portion
thereof. The electric wiring state is determined utilizing a
discrimination circuit 30 by comparing the difference in polarity
between the voltage pulses at the source and end portions of the
line.
b) The Prior Art:
In FIG. 1, the Metcalf patent discloses a current sensing
circuit 42 for sensing a direction of flow of an injected current
pulse along a conductor 106 (FIGS. 2 and 3) of a circuit under
test. The conductor comprises part of a circuit, such as a
printed circuit, which has several components connected to a node
where a circuit or component fault is known to be present. A
probe 12 introduces the injection current to the conductor at the
node. The current has a triangular wave form as illustrated in
FIGS. 2(a) and 2(d) to facilitate discrimination of the direction
of current flow. A U-shaped ferrite core 46 forms part of the
Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
9
current sensing circuit and is simultaneously placed near
conductor 106 so that the magnetic field associated with the
pulse of current flowing through conductor 106 induces a
corresponding voltage in coil 44 which triggers one of two
comparators 50 and 52 in accord with the polarity of the current
pulse. The probe 12 and core 46 can be separated along the
conductor 106 (col. 8, l. 34-38). The polarity of the voltage
pulse induced across coil 44 depends on the direction of the
magnetic field inducing the pulse. Thus, the display logic 54
receives a signal from both a polarity latch 18 and one of the
triggered comparators to indicate the direction of the circuit
fault.
c) Opinion:
We reverse the rejection of method claims 1-10, 19 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Metcalf et al.
We find that there are differences between the subject matter
sought to be patented and the prior art as taught by the above
reference and that it has not been established that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art
to which the subject matter pertains. With respect to the only
Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
10
independent claims 1 and 19, Metcalf et al. does not detect the
voltage signal at the two end portions of short circuited lines;
nor does the reference compare polarities between the fed pulse
voltage signal and the detected signal so as to discriminate the
wiring state between the two source portions and the
corresponding two end portions. At most, Metcalf et al.'s method
involves detection of an electric signal along an electric line.
The position of the examiner to the effect that the conductors
106 of Figures 2(b) and 2(c) of the reference are short circuited
at their source portions in a common circuit is not well taken.
These figures illustrate alternative ways of locating different
points on a conductor for detecting faults and do not disclose
the short circuiting of two wires in a common circuit.
Even assuming for the purpose of argument that appellants
utilize Metcalf et al.'s basic method of detecting a conductor
fault, it has not been established that the reference considered
as a whole would have suggested the method of appellants' claims
for determining the electrical wiring state of two short
circuited conductors. The bare conclusion that the method of
Metcalf et al. is applicable to any preexisting wiring condition
is not persuasive.
Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
11
Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
12
Summary
In summary:
a) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 11, 12,
14-16, 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, is
reversed; and
b) the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-10,
19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
REVERSED
)
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ, JR. )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-4530
Application 08/077,993
13
Lowe, Price, Leblanc & Becker
99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 300
Alexandria, VA 22314