Ex Parte Theiler

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 9, 2011

10521931 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 9, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HELMUT THEILER
_____________

Appeal 2010-004142
Application 10/521,931
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before THOMAS S. HAHN, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004142
Application 10/521,931

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-11 and 19-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

INVENTION
Appellant’s Figure 2 is reproduced below:

Appellant’s Figure 2 and claimed invention are directed to a MOSFET
14 that controls two independent loads, 2 (i.e., heating resistor) and 3 (i.e.,
lamp). When a phase detection device 6 detects a positive half-wave, it
signifies that a current only flows through the heating resistor 2. Thus, the
control signal of the time circuit 7only affects the heating resistor 2, because
current cannot flow through the lamp 3. The situation is reversed in the case
Appeal 2010-004142
Application 10/521,931

3
of a negative half-wave, which means that the sensor circuit 8 can only
affect the switched state of the lamp 3. See Spec. 7-8.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A circuit array for controlling operation of two loads that operate with a
rectified AC voltage, the circuit array comprising:
a first current path that includes a first load of the two loads;
a second current path that includes a second load of the two loads;
a semiconductor switch on a circuit path that includes the two loads,
the semiconductor switch being electrically connected to a common node of
the first current path and the second current path; and
a control unit to generate a switch control signal that controls the
semiconductor switch;
wherein the control unit comprises:
a phase detection device to detect whether a phase of the AC voltage
is positive or negative, and to output a logical detection signal that is based
on whether the phase is positive or negative; and
a logic unit to generate the switch control signal based on one or more
logical load control signals and the logical detection signal, wherein the
control unit is configured to supply the first current path with a first half
wave of the rectified AC voltage and to supply the second current path with
a second half wave of the rectified AC voltage.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Dalnodar US 5,504,400 Apr. 2, 1996
The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-11 and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Dalnodar.

Appeal 2010-004142
Application 10/521,931

4
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that
Dalnodar teaches “logical load control signals” as recited in independent
claims 1 and 6 (emphasis added).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5 and 19-22
Appellant argues (App. Br. 15) that Dalnodar fails to disclose “a logic
unit to generate the switch control signal based on one or more logical load
control signals and the logical detection signal” (emphasis added) as recited
in independent claim 1.
We agree. The Examiner correctly found that the outputs by the
Dalnodar variable resistors (VR11, VR12) meet the portion of the limitation
for “load control signals” (Ans. 9). However, the Examiner’s findings fall
short of, and fail to disclose how those “load control signals” also constitute
“logical load control signals” (emphasis added) as recited in claim 1.
For the aforesaid reason we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and for similar reasons the rejection of dependent claims 2-5 and 19-
22.
Claims 6-11
For similar reasons, as we stated above, we will also reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 and dependent claims 7-11, because the
Examiner has not shown that Dalnodar teaches “logical load control signals”
as recited in independent claim 6.

Appeal 2010-004142
Application 10/521,931

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in finding that Dalnodar teaches “logical load
control signals” as recited in independent claims 1 and 6 (emphasis added).

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11 and 19-22 is
reversed.

REVERSED

babc