Appeal No. 97-0356
Application No. 08/086,150
3). The movement of the indicator 78 to a new "null" position
is referred to as calibration of the potentiometer circuit.
The examiner is of the opinion (Answer, page 4) that:
It is inherent that the circuit of Petry compares
voltages and ratios of voltages which may exceed a
predetermined limit as this is used to calibrate and
standardize the temperature measuring device. In
the alternative, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made that the circuit of Petry
compares voltages and ratios of voltages which may
exceed a predetermined limit as this is used to
calibrate and standardize the temperature measuring
device.
Appellant argues (Amended Brief, pages 12 and 13) that:
[T]he Examiner has not shown that Petry teaches or
infers a "means for comparing the first signal
generated by thermocouple 60 to a second signal
generated by thermocouple 67 to generate an error
signal signifying a change in the calibration of one
of said at least two thermocouple junctions as set
forth in claim 12. In contrast, the temperature
indicating device taught by Petry is responsive to
the difference of the EMF’s generated by the two
thermocouples due to a change in temperature to
change the position of the tap 78 and to generate a
visual display of the temperature being sensed. In
the temperature indicating device taught by Petry,
it is assumed that EMF’s generated by the
thermocouples 60 and 67 are within calibration and
it would be obvious to one skilled in the art that a
loss of the calibration of thermocouple 60 or 67
would only produce a false temperature reading but
would not signify that one or the other of the
thermocouples 60 or 67 was out of calibration.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007