Appeal No. 95-1844
Application 07/822,063
persuasive, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3 and
7.
4. The rejection of claim 4 as
unpatentable over Béjot, Markuson and
Leyde.
Claim 4 adds absolute value circuitry to the apparatus
of claim 1. The examiner cites Leyde as a teaching that it
was known to use absolute value circuitry in power monitoring
devices. The examiner asserts that the use of absolute value
circuitry in the Béjot-Markuson combination would have been
obvious to the artisan because it would reduce circuitry and
cut costs [final rejection, page 7]. Appellant argues that
there is no suggestion in the applied references to use
absolute value circuitry to provide a signal representative of
the absolute value of the power signal.
Even though the absolute value circuitry is recited
extremely broadly in claim 4, we agree with appellant that the
use of an absolute value detector in Leyde for a different
purpose would not have suggested its use with the Béjot power
detector. The examiner’s theory that an absolute value
detector would cut costs is purely conjectural on his part.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007