Appeal No. 1998-0463
Application No. 08/450,849
The arguments advanced by appellant do not convince us
that the content of claims 18, 20, and 22 is patentable.
While appellant argues that the claims at issue measure “only
current,” the argument is clearly not commensurate with the
scope of the claims before us. Specifically, claims 18, 20,
and 22, drafted in “comprising” format, simply do not preclude
the inclusion of a voltage probe. As to appellant’s
commentary regarding the display of one harmonic in the
Lowenstein '114 document (brief, page 5), we noted above that
this same reference would have been suggestive of the display
of plural LEDs and multiple harmonics.
The argument is also made (brief, page 5) that neither of the
applied references incorporate two levels of autoranging; one
based upon resistor switching, and the other on the use of a
“transconductance amp as a voltage controlled amplifier
(VCA).” However, these particular two levels are not found in
the claims.
As to appellant’s discussion of the display of computed RMS
values in Lowenstein '164 (brief, page 6), we simply point out
that claims 18, 20, and 22 do not preclude RMS values for the
measured current.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007