Appeal No. 97-0356
Application No. 08/086,150
We agree with appellant’s argument. The examiner has
mistakenly concluded (Answer, page 8) that "it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made that the entire circuit provides comparison
of the signals and an indication of a change in the
calibration of one of the thermocouples by the change of the
variable tap." As indicated supra, Petry is concerned with
calibration of the potentiometer circuit attached to the
thermocouple junctions, and not with calibration of the
thermocouple junctions. If the calibration of one of the
thermocouple junctions was off, then the indicator 78 in Petry
would certainly be set to an incorrect "null" position.
Accordingly, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 12, 20 and 21 are
reversed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 14, 17 through
19, 22 through 24, 26, 27 and 30 are reversed because the
teachings of Bock and Kleinle do not cure the shortcomings in
the teachings of Petry.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007