Ex parte SETTLES

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 20, 1998

07967465 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 20, 1998)

Application for patent filed October 26, 1992.1
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was not written for publication in a law journal and (2) is not
binding precedent of the Board.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. 12
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte STEVEN R. SETTLES,
JOHN A. BARRS and
DARRELL J. KOLOMYSKI
_____________
Appeal No. 95-3382
Application 07/967,4651
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before THOMAS, HAIRSTON and LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal No. 95-3382
Application 07/967,465
2
Appellants have appealed to the Board from the examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 to 4, which constitute all the claims
in the application.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A control system comprising:
a plurality of loads;
a drive for each load; and
switch means for operating each drive; characterized by:
means for providing a reference signal with a magnitude that
is a function of a received reference control signal;
means for providing a sense signal indicating total current
through the loads;
means for comparing the sense signal and said reference
signal to produce a reset signal when the sense signal is at
least as great as said reference signal;
means for producing first output signals that activate each
drive simultaneously in response to a first control signal, for
producing second output signals that activate each drive
sequentially in response to a second control signal and for
removing the first output in response to the reset signal;
signal processing means for providing said first control
signal in response to operation of switch means, for providing
said second control signal in response to said reset signal, for
providing said reference control signal in response to said
switch means, for controlling the magnitude of the reference
signal as function of the drives that are operated by the
switches based on stored parameters for each drive, and for
disabling the second signal for a specific drive when the current
to the drive exceeds the value stored for the drive.
The following reference is relied on by the examiner:
Appeal No. 95-3382
Application 07/967,465
3
Melocik et al. (Melocik) 4,511,947 Apr. 16, 1985
Claims 1 to 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Melocik alone.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse the above stated rejection of claims 1 to 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. We are in general agreement with the reasoning
set forth by appellants in the brief including the position
advocated at page 5 of the brief that Melocik does not find a
faulty load and isolate it and then recompute the allowable
current and that Melocik is not concerned with individually
testing each load based on the stored current value for each
respective load once it has been determined that the overall load
current is too high as expressed at page 7 of the brief.
This above noted reasoning of appellants is consistent with
the language of the last two clauses of independent claim 1 on
appeal, the substance of which is expressed in slightly different
form in independent method claim 4 on appeal.
In accordance with the normal operating sequences specified
between columns 4 and 6 of Melocik, a common, total current
Appeal No. 95-3382
Application 07/967,465
4
monitoring arrangement exists in Melocik to monitor the total
current flow through the contactor coils. When the coil current
becomes excessive either because of normal use or a short circuit
in a contactor or contactors, the overall coil drivers 16 are
disabled when the total sense current exceeds a given value. As
expressed at col. 5, lines 38 through 47 and col. 6, lines 55
through 59, when excessive current flowing through the shunt
resistors 94, 94' continues to exist, the multivibrator 100
repetitively toggles the NOR gates off for the preselected period
of time in accordance with the normal operation of the
multivibrator. This prevents the operation of the vehicle 120 in
Fig. 3 and further damage to the overall control system 10.
Melocik contains no additional teachings required of the
limitations of independent claim 1 on appeal once a fault is
determined to sequentially activate each drive in turn up to the
point of disabling the operation of the system when the specific
drive exhibiting the over current condition is found and
permanently disabled from the operation of the system.
Independent claim 4 contains the additional feature of
simultaneously activating the remaining drives after the drive or
drives have been logically excluded when its over current
Appeal No. 95-3382
Application 07/967,465
5
condition is discovered by the normal operation of the system
testing procedures.
The teachings in Melocik, thus, significantly fall short of
the requirements of independent claims 1 and 4 on appeal. The
examiner’s reasoning in the statement of the rejection and the
responsive arguments portion of the answer appears to fall short
of correlating the teachings of Melocik to respective independent
claims 1 and 4 on appeal as to the noted features we have found
deficient. Additionally, the examiner’s reasoning in these
portions of the answer appears to rationalize these limitations
without offering any additional evidence or references to support
the examiner’s assertions. Brief page 8. Therefore, on the
basis of the applied prior art, we must reverse the rejection of
independent claims 1 and 4 on appeal as well as the respective
rejection of dependent claims 2 and 3.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
)
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Appeal No. 95-3382
Application 07/967,465
6
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge )

Brenda Garrett
UT Automotive
Legal Department/Patent Section
5200 Auto Club Drive
Dearborn, MI 48126