Ex parte Hall

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Oct 22, 1998

08086150 (B.P.A.I. Oct. 22, 1998)

Application for patent filed 07/01/93. 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journal and (2) is not binding precedent of the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. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte BERTIE F. HALL, JR.
____________
Appeal No. 97-0356
Application No. 08/086,1501
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before HAIRSTON, MARTIN, and CARMICHAEL, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 97-0356
Application No. 08/086,150
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 2
through 4, 6 through 14 and 16 through 29. In an Amendment
After Final (paper number 8), claims 2 through 4, 6 through
11, 13, 16, 25, 28 and 29 were canceled, claims 12, 14, 17
through 19, 22 and 26 were amended, and claim 30 was added to
the application. In a second Amendment After Final (paper
number 15), claim 17 was amended. Accordingly, claims 12, 14,
17 through 24, 26, 27 and 30 remain before us on appeal.
The disclosed invention relates to a thermocouple system
that has three thermoelements connected to each other to form
at least two different thermocouple junctions. The
thermocouple system generates an error signal signifying a
change in the calibration of one of the at least two
thermocouple junctions.
Claim 12 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it
reads as follows:
12. A self-diagnostic thermocouple system comprising:
three thermoelements connected to each other to form at
least two different thermocouple junctions, one of said
thermocouple junctions producing a first signal having a value
which is a first function of a sensed temperature, the other
of said at least two different thermocouple junctions
Appeal No. 97-0356
Application No. 08/086,150
3
producing a second signal having a value which is a second
function of said sensed temperature; and
means for comparing said first signal to said second
signal to generate an error signal in response to a ratio
between said first and second signals being different from a
first predetermined ratio indicative of at least one limiting
value between said first and second signals, said error signal
signifying a change in the calibration of one of said at least
two thermocouple junctions.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Petry 2,696,118 Dec. 7, 1954
Kleinle 3,449,174 June 10, 1969
Bock 675,473 Dec. 3,
1963
(Canadian Patent)
Claims 12, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) as being anticipated by Petry or, in the alternative,
under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Petry.
Claims 14, 17, 22 through 24 and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Petry in view of
Bock.
Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Petry in view of Kleinle.
Claims 26 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Petry in view of Bock and Kleinle.
Appeal No. 97-0356
Application No. 08/086,150
4
Claims 12, 14, 17 through 24, 26, 27 and 30 stand
provisionally rejected under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable
over claims 6 through 10 of copending application ser. no.
08/086,151 in view of Petry or Bock.
Reference is made to the briefs and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the prior art rejections of claims 12, 14,
17 through 24, 26, 27 and 30, and sustain the provisional
obviousness-type double patenting rejection of claims 12, 14,
17 through 24, 26, 27 and 30.
Appellant’s response (Brief, page 15) to the provisional
obviousness-type double patenting rejection is that
"[a]pplicant, if required, will submit an appropriate Terminal
Disclaimer." Inasmuch as appellant has not challenged the
propriety of the provisional rejection, we will sustain the
Appeal No. 97-0356
Application No. 08/086,150
5
provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection of
claims 12, 14, 17 through 24, 26, 27 and 30.
Turning to the prior art rejections, Petry discloses
(Figure 1) a thermocouple system that comprises three
thermoelements 61, 62 and 68 connected to each other to form
at least two different thermocouple junctions 60 and 67. The
principal object of the Petry invention is to calibrate the
potentiometer circuit connected to the thermocouple junctions
(column 1, lines 63 through 66). One of the thermocouple
junctions produces a first signal having a value which is a
first function of a sensed temperature in oven 100, and the
other of the at least two different thermocouple junctions
produces a second signal having a value which is a second
function of the sensed temperature in the oven. The position
of the indicating device 78 relative to the potentiometer
winding 77 in the circuit is referred to as a "null" position,
and it is indicative of the temperature of the oven (column 7,
lines 7 through 23). When the temperature of the oven
changes, the circuit operates to move the indicator 78 to a
new "null" position (column 7, line 23 through column 8, line
Appeal No. 97-0356
Application No. 08/086,150
6
3). The movement of the indicator 78 to a new "null" position
is referred to as calibration of the potentiometer circuit.
The examiner is of the opinion (Answer, page 4) that:
It is inherent that the circuit of Petry compares
voltages and ratios of voltages which may exceed a
predetermined limit as this is used to calibrate and
standardize the temperature measuring device. In
the alternative, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made that the circuit of Petry
compares voltages and ratios of voltages which may
exceed a predetermined limit as this is used to
calibrate and standardize the temperature measuring
device.
Appellant argues (Amended Brief, pages 12 and 13) that:
[T]he Examiner has not shown that Petry teaches or
infers a "means for comparing the first signal
generated by thermocouple 60 to a second signal
generated by thermocouple 67 to generate an error
signal signifying a change in the calibration of one
of said at least two thermocouple junctions as set
forth in claim 12. In contrast, the temperature
indicating device taught by Petry is responsive to
the difference of the EMF’s generated by the two
thermocouples due to a change in temperature to
change the position of the tap 78 and to generate a
visual display of the temperature being sensed. In
the temperature indicating device taught by Petry,
it is assumed that EMF’s generated by the
thermocouples 60 and 67 are within calibration and
it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that a
loss of the calibration of thermocouple 60 or 67
would only produce a false temperature reading but
would not signify that one or the other of the
thermocouples 60 or 67 was out of calibration.
Appeal No. 97-0356
Application No. 08/086,150
7
We agree with appellant’s argument. The examiner has
mistakenly concluded (Answer, page 8) that "it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made that the entire circuit provides comparison
of the signals and an indication of a change in the
calibration of one of the thermocouples by the change of the
variable tap." As indicated supra, Petry is concerned with
calibration of the potentiometer circuit attached to the
thermocouple junctions, and not with calibration of the
thermocouple junctions. If the calibration of one of the
thermocouple junctions was off, then the indicator 78 in Petry
would certainly be set to an incorrect "null" position.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 12, 20 and 21 are
reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 14, 17 through
19, 22 through 24, 26, 27 and 30 are reversed because the
teachings of Bock and Kleinle do not cure the shortcomings in
the teachings of Petry.
Appeal No. 97-0356
Application No. 08/086,150
8
DECISION
The prior art rejections of claims 12, 14, 17 through 24,
26, 27 and 30 are reversed, but the provisional obviousness-
type double patenting rejection of these claims is affirmed.
No period for taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOHN C. MARTIN ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JAMES T CARMICHAEL )
Administrative Patent Judge

Appeal No. 97-0356
Application No. 08/086,150
9
WILLIAM G. ABBATT
BROOKS & KUSHMAN
1000 TOWN CENTER
TWENTY-SECOND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075
Leticia
Appeal No. 97-0356
Application No. 08/086,150
APJ HAIRSTON
APJ CARMICHAEL
APJ MARTIN
DECISION: AFFIRMED
Send Reference(s): Yes No
or Translation (s)
Panel Change: Yes No
Index Sheet-2901 Rejection(s): _____
Prepared: March 15, 2000
Draft Final
3 MEM. CONF. Y N
OB/HD GAU
PALM / ACTS2 / BOOK
DISK (FOIA) / REPORT