Ex parte OVERHAGE et al.

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 24, 1998

08348389 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 24, 1998)

Application for patent filed December 2, 1994. According1
to applicants, the application is a continuation of Application
08/135,099, filed October 12, 1993, now Patent No. 5,446,650.
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(2) is not binding precedent of the Board.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. 17
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte CRAIG OVERHAGE
AND
RICHARD AUSTIN
_____________
Appeal No. 96-1977
Application 08/348,3891
______________
ON BRIEF
_______________
Before HAIRSTON, BARRETT, and TORCZON, Administrative Patent
Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
Appeal No. 96-1977
Application No. 08/348,389
2
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1
through 7, 30 and 31.
The disclosed invention relates to a method for obtaining
and presenting digital data as being in either a first logic
state or a second logic state, and to a method for communicating
both analog and digital information to an instrument user.
Claims 1 and 30 are illustrative of the claimed invention,
and they read as follows:
1. A method for obtaining and presenting digital data comprising
the steps of:
performing multi-bit A/D conversion on an input signal at a
plurality of sample times to obtain a series of multi-bit digital
sample values with each sample value being associated with a
corresponding sample time;
providing a logic level abstraction threshold as a
reference; and
comparing sample values to the logic level abstraction
threshold to establish whether each sample value is in a first
logic state or a second logic state.
30. A method for communicating both analog and digital
information to an instrument user comprising the steps of:
displaying an analog waveform representation of an input
signal;
supplying the user with a cursor positionable along the time
axis of the analog waveform display, the cursor having a current
position; and
presenting a readout of a digital value of the analog signal
Appeal No. 96-1977
Application No. 08/348,389
The examiner includes a listing of prior art of record2
(Answer, page 2), but states that “only appellant’s [sic,
appellants’] admissions concerning the following prior [art] has
been used in rejecting the claims an [sic, and] not the actual
documents.”
3
at the current position.
Claims 1 through 7, 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being clearly anticipated by appellants’ admitted
prior art in the Background of the Invention found on pages 12
through 9 of the specification.
Reference is made to the brief and the answer for the
respective positions of the appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Appellants argue (Brief, page 3) that “[n]one of the 13 U.S.
patents discussed on pages 1-3 and the top of page 4 (to line 10)
of the Background of the Invention portion of the specification
include content corresponding to the second or third steps of
claim 1, since they all refer to oscilloscopes having
conventional oscilloscope displays. . . .” An additional
argument (Brief, page 4) by appellants is that:
The next 13 U.S. patents that are discussed in the
Background of the Invention, from page 4, line 11, to
page 8, are all logic analyzer patents. None of these
patents describe an instrument which meets the first
element of Applicants’ claim 1, i.e., “performing
multi-bit A/D conversion on an input signal at a
plurality of times to obtain a series of multi-bit
Appeal No. 96-1977
Application No. 08/348,389
4
digital sample values.” Logic analyzers of the prior
art all make threshold comparisons directly from the
input analog signal, and do not perform multi-bit A/D
conversion to obtain a series of multi-bit digital
sample values before making such a comparison.
We agree with appellants that two different devices (i.e.,
oscilloscopes and logic analyzers) are described on pages 1
through 8 of the Background of the Invention, and that neither
device is capable of performing all of the steps set forth in
claim 1. The last page of the Background of the Invention
indicates that “[s]everal efforts have been made to combine some
of the features of logic analyzers with those of oscilloscopes.”
Several broad features of combined devices are described on the
last page of the Background of the Invention, but they do not
perform the steps set forth in claim 1. In the absence of
evidence that states otherwise, we have no reason to disagree
with appellants’ argument (Brief, page 4) that “[i]n these
instruments there is a separation between the logic analyzer part
and the oscilloscope part, . . . .”
With respect to claim 30, we agree with appellants’ argument
(Brief, page 5) that “[t]he admitted prior art does not show the
combination of ‘displaying an analog waveform representation of
an input signal’, ‘supplying the user with a cursor positionable
along the time axis of the analog waveform display, the cursor
Appeal No. 96-1977
Application No. 08/348,389
5
having a current position’, and ‘presenting a readout of a
digital value of the analog signal at the current position.’”
In view of the foregoing, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection
of claims 1 and 30 and the claims that depend therefrom is
reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 7,
30 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed.
REVERSED
KENNETH W. HAIRSTON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
LEE E. BARRETT ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
RICHARD TORCZON )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Appeal No. 96-1977
Application No. 08/348,389
6
TEKTRONIX INC.
P.O. Box 1000 (63-LAW)
Wilsonville, Oregon 97070-1000