Appeal No. 1998-1251
Application 08/521,393
invention and Daniel’s, e.g., Daniel’s looks for faults in a solid
conductor lightning protection system whereas applicant’s
device can locate the position of faults in the outer shield of
cables by detecting the current produced by a magnetic field
that is 90 degrees from the magnetic field measured by the
Daniel’s reference.
The examiner can either refute the existence of these differences or account for
them meaningfully in a proper obviousness analysis. But the examiner may not simply
ignore them. Because of the provisions in 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, the claimed
detecting means in the appellant’s claim 1 may be the source of the various features as
have been argued by the appellant. That is an issue the examiner must explore, as a part
of the examination process, in light of the arguments made by the appellant.
The appellant also argues that a big difference between his claimed invention and
both Tuttle ‘375 and Daniel is that while his claimed invention actually locates the position
of the fault on the cable, neither Tuttle ‘375 nor Daniel teaches that aspect of the
appellant’s claimed invention. In response, the examiner states (answer at 4, lines 1-2):
The ‘375 patent does teach the use of the exploring coil
to locate faults (col. 4, line 23).
However, a plain reading of column 4, line 23 of Tuttle ‘375 does not reveal that Tuttle
‘375's cable resistance tester operates to identify the specific location of any fault on the
cable. In column 4, lines 22-26, Tuttle ‘375 simply states:
The desired values of shield resistance, including flaws, are
determined by measurements of pulse droop obtained from
visual display of shield current response waveforms.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007