Ex parte Vanderwilt

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 26, 1997

07880702 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 26, 1997)

THIS OPINION WAS NOT WRITTEN FOR PUBLICATION
This opinion (1) was not written for publication and
(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 18
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte LOUIS A. VANDERWILT
____________
Appeal No. 95-0421
Application 07/880,702
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before MARTIN, JERRY SMITH, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
TORCZON, Administrative Patent Judge.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Applicant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. No other claims
are pending. We reverse.
FINDINGS OF FACT
We have reviewed the record in its entirety in light of the
arguments of Applicant and the examiner. Our decision presumes
familiarity with the entire record. A preponderance of the
evidence of record supports each of the following fact findings.
Appeal No. 95-0421
Application 07/880,702
- 2 -
A. The nature of the case
1. The subject matter of the invention is an automatic
control system for a sand classifying tank. (Paper 1 at 8.) The
classified sand in the tank is selectively removed and reblended
to meet various product specifications. (Paper 1 at 2-4.) The
sand is selectively removed using valves that open into separate
product flumes for a controlled amount of time. (Paper 1 at 3.)
One object of the invention is to speed up the initialization
routine for the valve timers. (Paper 1 at 8-9.)
2. All of the independent claims are written in Jepson
format. Representative claim 1 sets forth the improvement over
the prior art as follows:
starting a set-up time counter that will determine
how long the incoming feed will be monitored during
operation of the tank;
counting and storing in a data storage means total
valve-open time for at least one valve at each station from
the time the timer initialization routine begins until the
time the set-up time counter reaches the set-up duration
limit;
loading the valve-open time data into the
computing means;
in the computing means, sorting the valve-open
time data to identify the most active station,
normalizing all other station valve-open times to the
time of the most active station, multiplying the
normalized valve-open times at each station by the base
minimum timer setting to produce initialized minimum
timer settings, multiplying the initialized minimum
timer settings by the standard maximum-to-minimum timer
Appeal No. 95-0421
Application 07/880,702
- 3 -
ratio to produce initialized maximum timer settings; and
re-setting the maximum and minimum timers of each
station to the initialized maximum and minimum timer
settings for that station.
3. The examiner finally rejected claims 1-10 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. No other claims are pending. (Paper 5 at 1.)
In making the rejection, the examiner relied on the
following references:
McCauley 3,913,788 21 Oct. 1975
Keeney 4,199,080 22 Apr. 1980
4. The references, read as a whole, do not teach or
suggest the claimed acts or structures for initializing timers in
a classification tank. Specifically, the references do not teach
sorting valve-open time data to identify a most active station
and normalizing all other station valve-open times to obtain
initialized minimum and maximum timer settings for each station.
The examiner has relied on the level of skill in the art to
provide the missing suggestion (e.g., Paper 12 at 6-7), but has
not explained why the artisan would have been motivated to modify
the references to obtain the claimed invention. The teaching in
McCauley that (1.63-66) the prior art Cochran system uses maximum
and minimum timers and the teaching in Keeney that the maximum
and minimum timer values are "predetermined" (6:53-54) or
Appeal No. 95-0421
Application 07/880,702
- 4 -
"assumed" (8:30-34) fall short of teaching the claimed acts and
structures.
Appeal No. 95-0421
Application 07/880,702
- 5 -
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The cited references, considered as a whole, would not have
rendered the claimed subject matter as a whole obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-10 is reversed.
REVERSED
JOHN C. MARTIN )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JERRY SMITH ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 95-0421
Application 07/880,702
- 6 -
Kinzer, Plyer, Dorn,
McEachran & Jambor
55 East Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603