Ex parte CERMINARA et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 6, 1998

08111332 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 6, 1998)

Application for patent filed August 24, 1993. 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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the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. 13
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte FRANK A. CERMINARA, JOEL A. ROSSBACH, JOHN A. WARGO
and RAYMOND H. LEGATTI
____________
Appeal No. 97-0289
Application No. 08/111,3321
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, KRASS and FLEMING, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 8. In an Amendment After Final (paper number 6),
claims 5 and 6 were amended, and claim 4 was canceled.
Accordingly, claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 8 remain before
us on appeal.
Appeal No. 97-0289
Application No. 08/111,332
2
The disclosed invention relates to a modular leakage
current detector and interrupter.
Claim 7 is illustrative of the claimed invention, and it
reads as follows:
7. A modular leakage current detector and interrupter
comprising:
a sense module for detecting ground fault currents in
excess of a given value, the sense module including circuitry
to provide an interrupt signal,
a circuit interrupt module mounted remote from the sense
module and interconnected to the sense module to disconnect
power to the machine upon receipt of the interrupt signal, and
a test and control module mounted remote from the sense
module, the test and control module providing a fault signal
to periodically test the operability of the modular leakage
current detector and interrupter.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Gryctko et al. (Gryctko) 3,812,400 May
21, 1974
Morris et al. (Morris) 4,686,600 Aug. 11,
1987
Claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 8 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gryctko in view of
Morris.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
Appeal No. 97-0289
Application No. 08/111,332
3
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 7 and
8,
Appeal No. 97-0289
Application No. 08/111,332
4
and reverse the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 3,
5 and 6.
Gryctko discloses (Figure 13) a modular leakage current
detector and interrupter that includes a sense module 17 for
detecting ground fault currents in load 35, and a circuit
interrupt module 16 that is responsive to an interrupt signal
from elements 41 and 39 of the sense module to disconnect the
line current to the load. A power supply is located in the
sense module 17, and a shunt trip coil 40 is located in the
circuit interrupt module 16. For a remote test and control
module, the examiner turns to Morris which discloses (Figure
2) a modular ground fault circuit breaker that includes a push
to test button 26 and test spring 29. A ground fault can be
simulated by pressing the test button 26.
According to the examiner (Answer, pages 3 and 4), “[i]t
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
combine the teachings of Morris into the teaching of Gryctko
because the use of fault simulating test arrangements is old
and well known in the art, with the use of modular components
understood not to change the function of a ground fault
interrupter.” We agree with the examiner that a test
Appeal No. 97-0289
Application No. 08/111,332
5
arrangement for ground fault interrupters is “old and well
known in the art” (Answer, pages 3 and 4), and that “[a]
person of ordinary skill
. . . would be able to apply the remote concept to the prior
art with ease due to the fact that both teachings use modular
elements” (Answer, page 5). Appellants’ arguments (Brief,
pages 4 through 6) concerning remote interconnections and
remote testing do not convince us of the nonobviousness of the
invention set forth in claims 7 and 8. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claims 7 and 8 is sustained.
Claims 1 through 3 and 6 differ from claim 7 on appeal in
that they claim a power supply that includes a
rectifier/filter and a regulator. The examiner concludes
(Answer, page 4) that:
Ground faults are known to have a very small
current magnitude that can only be detected and
removed by active circuits with powered elements.
Such circuits are well known to get their power from
the line to be protected and use simple regulators
to power the DC sense amplifier integrated circuit.
The examiner’s conclusions may be true, but we have no
evidence in the record to support such conclusions.
“Allegations concerning specific ‘knowledge’ of the prior art,
Appeal No. 97-0289
Application No. 08/111,332
6
which might be peculiar to a particular art should . . . be
supported and the appellant similarly given the opportunity to
make a challenge.” In re Pardo, 684 F.2d 912, 917, 214 USPQ
673, 677 (CCPA 1982). The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims
1 through 3 and 6 is reversed because appellants correctly
argue (Brief, page 6) that the applied references do not teach
a power supply with a rectifier/filter and a regulator.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 5 is reversed
because the examiner never addressed the ground fault current
range recited therein.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 3
and 5 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed as to claims
7 and 8, and is reversed as to claims 1 through 3, 5 and 6.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Appeal No. 97-0289
Application No. 08/111,332
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 97-0289
Application No. 08/111,332
8
Ronald Zibelli
Xerox Corp.
Xerox Square 20A
Rochester, NY 14644
Appeal No. 97-0289
Application No. 08/111,332
9
KWH/jrg
JENINE GILLIS

Appeal No. 97-0289
Serial No. 08/111,332
Judge HAIRSTON
Judge KRASS

Judge FLEMING
Received: 04 Sep 98
Typed: 08 Sep 98

DECISION: AFFIRMED-IN-
PART

Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation(s)
Panel Change: Yes No
3-Person Conf. Yes No
Remanded: Yes No
Brief or Heard
Group Art Unit: 2836
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): ___________
Acts 2: ____
Palm: ____
Mailed: Updated Monthly Disk (FOIA): ____
Updated Monthly Report: ___
Appeal No. 97-0289
Application No. 08/111,332
11