Appeal No. 95-1844
Application 07/822,063
references, that the trip circuitry is not taught by Markuson,
and that the combination of teachings does not provide a
substantially instantaneous indication of power [brief, pages
10-17].
With respect to appellant’s first two points, Markuson
teaches a power monitoring device which measures and indicates
overload conditions, underload conditions and other conditions
[column 4, line 24]. Markuson also teaches that the detected
conditions result in the motor being slowed down, shut down or
restarted as desired [column 6, lines 61-63]. We agree with
the examiner that a trip signal is the same as a shut down
signal, and the shut down signal of Markuson would meet the
trip signal recitation of claim 1. Considering the breadth of
claim 1, we conclude that it would have been obvious to the
artisan to broadly provide trip circuitry as taught by
Markuson in order to shut down a device in an overload state
of power consumption such as the motor of Béjot. It is not
necessary that a suggestion to combine references be expressly
stated in the references themselves. The artisan would have
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007