Ex parte Peeters

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 17, 2000

08377776 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 17, 2000)

The board has jurisdiction as discussed in Ex parte1
Lemoine, 46 USPQ2d 1432 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1995).
-1-
The opinion in support of the decision being entered
today was not written for publication and is not
precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 21
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________
Ex parte BRAD PEETERS
________________
Appeal No. 1997-3098
Application 08/377,776
________________
ON BRIEF
________________
Before KIMLIN, GARRIS and OWENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
OWENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the examiner’s second nonfinal
rejection of claims 1-14, which are all of the claims in the
application.1
Appeal No. 1997-3098
Application 08/377,776
-2-
THE INVENTION
Appellant claims a water conductivity monitor connected
to a feed water probe and a filtered water probe. Claims 8
and 12 are illustrative and read as follows:
8. A water conductivity monitor that is connected to a
filter probe and a feed water probe, comprising:
a resistor circuit;
microcontroller means for generating a plurality of first
drive pulses and a plurality of second drive pulses that are
180E out of phase from said first drive pulses, wherein said
first and second drive pulses are sequentially provided to
both the filter probe and the feed water probe, and provided
to said resistor circuit to create a plurality of probe test
signals and a plurality of threshold test signals; and,
comparator means for comparing said probe test signals
and said feed water threshold test signals and providing an
output signal to said microcontroller means.
12. A water conductivity monitor that is connected to a
filter probe and a feed water probe, comprising:
a resistor circuit;
microcontroller means for generating a plurality of first
drive pulses that are provided to the filter and feed water
probes, and said resistor circuit, to create a plurality of
probe test signals and a plurality of threshold test signals;

integrator means for integrating said probe test signals
and said threshold test signals; and,
comparator means for comparing said integrated probe test
Appeal No. 1997-3098
Application 08/377,776
-3-
signals and said integrated threshold test signals and
providing an output signal to said microcontroller means.
THE REFERENCES
Tucci et al. (Tucci ‘598) 4,847,598 Jul. 11,
1989
Tucci et al. (Tucci ‘557) 4,937,557 Jun. 26,
1990
Birdsong et al. (Birdsong) 5,096,574 Mar. 17,
1992
THE REJECTION
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Birdsong in view of Tucci ‘598 and Tucci
‘557.
OPINION
We have carefully considered all of the arguments
advanced by appellant and the examiner and agree with
appellant that the aforementioned rejection is not well
founded. Accordingly, we reverse this rejection.
Claims 1-4 and 8-11
Claims 1-4 and 8-11 require a microcontroller which is
capable of generating a plurality of first drive pulses and a
Appeal No. 1997-3098
Application 08/377,776
-4-
plurality of second drive pulses, wherein the second drive
pulses are 180E out of phase with the first drive pulses and
the first and second drive pulses are sequentially provided to
both the filter probe and the fresh water probe, as well as to
a resistor circuit, to create a plurality of probe test
signals and a plurality of threshold test signals.
The examiner argues that Tucci ‘598 suggests out-of-phase
pulses and that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to use such out-of-phase pulses in Birdsong’s
system to obviate problems relating to electrode contamination
and erosion (answer, page 4).
The portion of Tucci ‘598 relied upon by the examiner
teaches that the output from comparator 39 is an AC signal
which initially is in phase with the AC input applied to
middle electrode probe 27, but changes to be 180E out of phase
with the AC input to probe 27 when the resin bed becomes
exhausted between probe 25 and probe 27 (col. 5, lines 10-16).
Appellant argues that this teaching in Tucci ‘598 is not
Appeal No. 1997-3098
Application 08/377,776
-5-
a disclosure of sequentially providing a plurality of phase
offset driving signals to both probes of the monitor (brief,
pages 7-8).
The examiner’s argument that Tucci ‘598 would have
suggested using out-of-phase pulses in Birdsong’s system to
obviate problems relating to electrode probe contamination and
electrolysis deterioration (col. 1, lines 60-63) is not
persuasive because the reason why this benefit is obtained,
Tucci ‘598 teaches, is that an AC signal is used rather than a
DC
potential and bridge (col. 2, lines 42-48). As argued by the
examiner, the reference also teaches that the output of
comparator 39 is changed to be 180E out of phase with the
input to probe 27. However, the examiner has not explained
why this change in phase, rather than the use of AC rather
than DC, is what the reference discloses as providing the
benefit regarding decreased electrode probe contamination and
electrolysis deterioration. Thus, it is not apparent why a
teaching of changing the phase of the output of a comparator
Appeal No. 1997-3098
Application 08/377,776
-6-
such that it is out of phase with the input to a probe would
have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art,
using first and second pluralities of input drive pulses to
the probes in the Birdsong system which are 180E out of phase
with each other.
For the above reasons we find that the examiner has not
set forth a factual basis which is sufficient for supporting a
conclusion of obviousness of the invention recited in
appellant’s claims 1-4 and 8-11. The rejection of these
claims, therefore, is reversed.
Claims 5-7 and 12-14
Claims 5-7 and 12-14 require an integrator circuit or
means for integrating which is capable of integrating the
probe test signals and threshold test signals.
The examiner argues that summing point 47 of Tucci ‘557
functions as an integrator circuit or means for integrating
because it algebraically sums two currents (answer, pages 3
and 7). Appellant argues that algebraically summing two
currents is not the same as integrating each test signal
(brief, page 10).
An integrator is “[a] circuit or device whose output is
Appeal No. 1997-3098
Application 08/377,776
John Marcus and Neil Sclater, McGraw-Hill Electronics2
Dictionary 275 (McGraw-Hill 1994).
-7-
the integral of its input with respect to time.” The2
discussion of the integrator circuit or means for integrating
in appellant’s specification (page 9, lines 13-23) is
consistent with this definition. The examiner has not
explained, and it is not apparent, why a component which
algebraically sums currents is an integrator circuit or means
for integrating as those terms are used by appellant or would
have fairly suggested such a device to one of ordinary skill
in the art. Consequently, the examiner has not carried the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of
the invention recited in claims 5-7 and 12-14. We therefore
reverse the rejection of these claims.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over
Birdsong in view of Tucci ‘598 and Tucci ‘557 is reversed.
REVERSED
Appeal No. 1997-3098
Application 08/377,776
-8-
EDWARD C. KIMLIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
BRADLEY R. GARRIS ) BOARD OF PATENT
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
TERRY J. OWENS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 1997-3098
Application 08/377,776
-9-
Ben J. Yorks
Irell & Manella
840 Newport Center Drive
Suite 400
Newport Beach, CA 92660