Ex parte Gleim et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 15, 1998

08123920 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 15, 1998)

Application for patent filed September 20, 1993.1
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for publication in a law journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 20
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte GUNTER GLEIM,
HERMANN LINK and FRIEDRICH HEIZMANN
_____________
Appeal No. 96-0322
Application 08/123,9201
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before URYNOWICZ, LEE and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
examiner's final rejection of claims 12, 13, 16, 17 and 20-23.
Claims 1-11, 14, 15, 18 and 19 have been canceled. No claim has
Appeal No. 96-0322
Application 08/123,920
2
been allowed.
References relied on by the Examiner
Denk et al. (Denk) 4,443,787 April 17, 1984
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 12, 13, 16, 17, and 20-23 stand finally rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Denk.
A rejection of claims 11, 15, 17 and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn by the examiner.
(Br. at 2 and Answer at 2).
The Invention
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for
monitoring an alternating signal. A modified signal is generated
having characteristics which are a measure of either the mark-to-
space ratio or the direct current component in the alternating
signal. Then, a comparison is made with respect to reference
signals to provide results establishing the mark-to-space ratio
or the direct current component of the alternating signal. A
control signal is constructed which indicates malfunction when
the mark-to-space exceeds a given value and/or when the direct
Appeal No. 96-0322
Application 08/123,920
3
current component of the alternating signal is outside given
values. Claims 20, 21 and 23 are the only independent claims.
Representative claim 20 is reproduced below:
20. A method for monitoring an alternating signal
comprising the steps of: modifying said alternating signal into
a modified signal having characteristics over time that are a
measure for a mark-to-space ratio and/or for a direct-current
component present in said alternating signal; comparing said
modified signal with reference signals and results establishing
said mark-to-space ratio and/or direct-current component of said
alternating signal; constructing a control signal from said
reference signals and a smoothed pulsed signal, said control
signal being a measure of a potential malfunction when said mark-
to-space ratio exceeds a given value and/or said direct-current
component of said alternating signal is outside specifically
given values; said alternating signal controls means having
activities decreased to standby in response to said results of
said comparing step.
Opinion
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 12, 13, 16, 17
and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Denk.
Anticipation is established only when a single prior art
reference discloses, either expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention. In
re Spada, 911 F.2d 705, 708, 15 USPQ2d 1655, 1657 (Fed. Cir.
Appeal No. 96-0322
Application 08/123,920
4
1990); RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Sys., Inc., 730 F.2d
1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The appellants argue that in Denk the sensor signal 1 is
monitored with regard to whether amplitude values A and B have
become exceeded, but is not monitored with regard to its
mark-to-space ratio. The argument is misplaced, since none of
the claims requires a monitoring of the alternating signal’s
mark-to-space ratio. In each of independent claims 20, 21, and
23, the comparison of the modified signal and reference signals
yields results which establish the mark-to-space ratio and/or the
direct-current component of the signal. The disjunctive term
"or" signifies either one or the other, in the alternative.
Thus, it is not necessary that the mark-to-space ratio be
monitored.
The appellants argue that the output signals from com-
parators 3 and 4 do not show any value which depends on the mark-
to-space ratio or the direct-voltage component of the signal I.
That is incorrect. The examiner is correct that the output
signal of comparator 4 (shown in Denk’s Figure 4) has a mark-to-
space ratio which corresponds to that of the modified signal and
Appeal No. 96-0322
Application 08/123,920
5
is dependent on the mark-to-space ratio of the input signal I.
The appellants have not addressed this point made by the examiner
and thus no error has been shown.
Nevertheless, the appellants are correct on one point. On
page 3 of the brief, the appellants admit that stage 11 of Denk
emits an output signal which is a measure for an error function
of the sensor signal 1. The appellants argue, however, that the
error function here is not of the required type, i.e., checking
whether a given mark-to-space ratio is exceeded or whether the
direct-current component of the alternating signal is outside
certain values. We agree with the appellants, at least insofar
as finding that the examiner has not made out a prima facie case.
The examiner found (answer at 4, lines 9-11) the claimed
feature at issue to be satisfied by Denk’s detecting whether the
alternating signal’s amplitude is outside given direct-current
values A and B (see figure 2). But that is misplaced. The
claims require determining whether the direct-current component
of the alternating signal is outside given values, not whether
the instantaneous signal amplitude is outside given direct-
current values. The claimed invention is directed to the direct-
Appeal No. 96-0322
Application 08/123,920
6
current component of the signal, not its instantaneous amplitude.
The direct-current component of an alternating signal is not the
same as the signal’s instantaneous amplitude. The examiner has
failed to explain or otherwise show how Denk describes that a
direct-current component of signal I is detected as being outside
a given range for error detection.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of claims 12, 13, 16, 17 and 20-23.
Conclusion
The rejection of claims 12, 13, 16, 17 and 20-23 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Denk is reversed.
REVERSED
STANLEY M. URYNOWICZ )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
Appeal No. 96-0322
Application 08/123,920
7
JAMESON LEE )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JAMES T. CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-0322
Application 08/123,920
8
Max Fogiel
61 Ethel Road West
Piscataway, NJ 08854