Ex Parte Nagpal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 19, 2017

13238418 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 19, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/238,418 09/21/2011 Anil NAGPAL H0028922-HON10513P00240US 4072
93730 7590 07/21/2017
HONEYWELL/WOOD PHILLIPS
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O. Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
ASTACIO-OQUENDO, GIOVANNI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2867
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/21/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ksanderson@woodphillips.com
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
docketing @ woodphillips .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANIL NAGPAL and ATAUR RAHMAN1
Appeal 2016-006260
Application 13/238,418
Technology Center 2800
Before BRADLEY R. GARRIS, ROMULO H. DELMENDO, and
MERRELL C. CASHION, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.
GARRIS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134, Appellants appeal from the Examiner’s
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1—3, 8—13, and 18—20 as
unpatentable over Shaw (US 5,136,234 issued Aug. 4, 1992) in view of
Gonzalez (US 5,581,016 issued Dec. 3, 1996). We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6.
1 Honeywell International Inc. is identified as the real party in interest. App.
Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-006260
Application 13/238,418
We REVERSE.
Appellants claim a high voltage phasing voltmeter 10 comprising first
and second probes 20, 22 each comprising an electrode 26, 28 for contacting
a high voltage electrical conductor, and a meter 24 comprising a housing 36
enclosing a peak hold selector switch 44 and an electrical circuit 50 for
measuring true rms voltage, the electrical circuit comprising an input circuit
54, 56, a converter circuit 58, a peak hold circuit 62, and a display 46 for
displaying the measured voltage and selectively displaying the peak value of
the true rms value when the peak hold selector switch 44 is enabled
(independent claim 1, Figs. 1—3; see also remaining independent claim 11).
A copy of representative claim 1, taken from the Claims Appendix of
the Appeal Brief, appears below.
1. A high voltage phasing voltmeter comprising:
first and second probes, each comprising an electrode for contacting a
high voltage electrical conductor, the electrode being connected in series
with a resistor; and
a meter comprising a housing enclosing a peak hold selector switch
and an electrical circuit for measuring true rms voltage, the electrical circuit
comprising an input circuit for connection to the first and second probes and
developing a scaled voltage representing measured voltage across the
electrodes, a converter circuit for converting the scaled voltage to a DC
signal representing true rms value of the measured voltage, a peak hold
circuit connected to the converter circuit to hold a peak value of the true rms
value and a display connected to the peak hold circuit for displaying the
measured voltage and selectively displaying the peak value of the true rms
value when the peak hold selector switch is enabled.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Shaw discloses a high
voltage phasing voltmeter comprising probes and a meter having a display
2
Appeal 2016-006260
Application 13/238,418
(Final Action 6—7) but “does not specifically teach a housing enclosing a
peak hold selector switch, measuring true rms voltage, a peak hold circuit
connected to the converter circuit to hold the peak value of the true rms
value and a display connected to the peak hold element for displaying the
measured voltage and selectively displacing [sic, displaying] the peak value
of the true rms value when the peak hold selector switch is enabled [as
claimed]” (id. at 8). In this latter regard, the Examiner finds that Gonzalez
suggests the claim 1 features not taught by Shaw (id.) and concludes that it
would have been obvious “to modify Shaw in view of Gonzalez in order to
provide a simplified digital readout for an operator (Gonzalez, column 4,
lines 24 — 26)” (id. at 9).
Appellants point out that “Gonzalez is monitoring ‘knock’ in an
aircraft engine” (App. Br. 6) and argue that “[t]he problem of knock in an
aircraft engine is not remotely relevant to a lineman measuring AC voltage
on power lines” (id.). Appellants further argue that “one skilled in the art
would not remotely consider modifying the teachings of Shaw based on any
teaching in Gonzalez” (id.) and that the Examiner has failed to provide an
objective reason to combine the references based on articulated reasoning
with rational underpinning (id.).
In response, the Examiner states that “it is within the capabilities of
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shaw in view of Gonzalez in order
to provide a system with a simplified readout for an operator of the system”
(Ans. 5).
3
Appeal 2016-006260
Application 13/238,418
Contrary to the Examiner’s apparent belief, obviousness is not
established by the mere conclusory statement that the proposed modification
“is within the capabilities of one of ordinary skill in the art” (Ans. 5). As
correctly noted by Appellants (App. Br. 6), “rejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988
(Fed. Cir. 2006) quoted with approval in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398,418 (2007).
Moreover, we agree with Appellants’ contention that “[t]he
[Examiner’s] stated reason for the combination—‘to provide a simplified
digital readout for an operator’ [Final Action 9; see also Ans. 5] does not
stand as the digital display 24 of Gonzalez is the same as the digital display
43 of Shaw” (Reply Br. 2). In the record before us, the Examiner fails to
establish that the digital display of Gonzalez, disclosed in the context of a
detonation indication system in an aircraft, would provide a simplified
display relative to Shaw’s digital display. Correspondingly, the Examiner
fails to articulate a reasoning with rational underpinning to support the
conclusion that it would have been obvious to combine Shaw and Gonzalez
in the manner required to arrive to the subject matter of claim 1.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
the appealed claims over Shaw in view of Gonzalez.
4
Appeal 2016-006260
Application 13/238,418
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.
REVERSED
5