Ex Parte TheilerDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 9, 201110521931 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 9, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation