Appeal No. 2002-0496 Page 8
Application No. 09/182,542
between successive pulses of a transient signal to determine a velocity of the transient
signal in a distribution loop of a URD system.
The other passage referenced by the appellants generally describes "[a] typical
current transient signal received by a fault distance indicator (FDI) according to the
present invention [a]s shown in Figure 3." (Id. at 13.) The specific passage follows.
To understand the waveform, each pulse in Figure 3 is labeled
numerically. Pulse 1 is the initial breakdown transient that first passes the
antenna. Pulse 2 is the first reflection from the end of the cable. Pulse 3
is the first reflection from the fault. Pulse 4 is the second reflection from
the end of the cable and pulse 5 is the second reflection from the fault.
(Id.) The second passage, however, fails to mention, determining a time between
successive pulses of the transient signal to determine a velocity of the transient signal
in a distribution loop of a URD system.
In summary, the step and the first passage merely disclose estimating the
propagation delay of a transient pulse through a cable; the second passage merely
discloses that a current transient signal typically includes an initial breakdown transient,
reflections from the end of a cable, and reflections from the fault. We are not
persuaded that these disclosures would have enabled one skilled in the art to make and
use the claimed means for determining a time between successive pulses of a transient
signal, which represents a fault, to determine a velocity of the transient signal in a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007