Appeal No. 2000-0368
Application No. 08/789,659
rejection at page 3.) The examiner further maintains that the resistor 162 relied upon in
Beihoff is considered to be a sensor in that it will sense and monitor the current flowing
through it and if the resistor was hooked-up to a meter one could actually see the voltage
and current changes. (See final rejection at page 5.) The examiner admits that the
resistor 162 does not produce a signal, but the examiner relies on the term “representing”
in the claim. The examiner argues that “one could argue that the resistor 162 of Beihoff et
al. does indeed produce a signal representing the rate of change of said secondary
current, since such current passes through said resistor.” (See final rejection at page 5
and see also answer at page 4.)
Appellant argues that the language of independent claim 17 requires “a sensor
coupled to one of said secondary lines for monitoring the secondary current to detect the
occurrence of an arcing fault signal in said line conductor, said sensor producing a
rate-of-change signal representing the rate of change of said secondary current”
(emphasis by appellant) and that the terms “rate of change” and “producing” require an
active element rather than the examiner’s passive element resistor 162. (See brief at
pages 13-15.) We agree with appellant. Furthermore, we find that while Beihoff teaches
the use of the second derivative signal, the examiner’s reliance upon the load resistor 162
would not produce a signal indicative of the rate of change of current. The
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007