Appeal No. 1998-0463
Application No. 08/450,849
We affirm the rejection of claim 22. It follows that the
rejection of dependent claim 23, which stands or falls with
claim 22, is likewise affirmed.
Claim 22 is drawn to a process for detecting the presence
of harmonics in a current carrying conductor comprising the
steps of, inter alia, sensing the presence of current in the
conductor, calculating the Fourier coefficients of the
harmonics of interest, comparing the Fourier coefficients to a
set of preset values, and providing an indication of the
severity of the harmonics based upon the above comparing step.
From our perspective, the process of claim 22 would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art based
upon the collective teachings of the Lowenstein references.
Clearly, Lowenstein '164 (column 3, lines 13 through 24) would
have been suggestive of the Fourier steps now claimed, while
Lowenstein '114 (column 7, lines 37 through 51) would have
motivated one having ordinary skill in the art to provide an
indication of the severity of a number of harmonics, as
claimed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007