Appeal No. 2002-2232
Application 09/174,032
(c) analyzing the pulses in the time domain at the
frequency to determine the phase relationship between the
frequency and cycles of the alternating current;
(d) identifying the location of the partial discharge
events as a function of frequency and phase relationship;
(e) determining a phase relationship between pulses and the
alternating current applied to the system; and
(f) determining a type of fault in the system that causes
partial discharge events as a function of the relationship of
step (e). (Examiner’s Answer, page 4, line 14 - page 5, line
7).
The appellants, on the other hand, assert that Rokunohe
does not anticipate the subject matter of claim 37. (Appeal
Brief, page 16, last line). The principal contention is that
claim elements (b) – (f) are lacking In Rokunohe (Appeal Brief,
page 16, lines 8-20) and that the Rokunohe system is offline
(Reply Brief, page 3, lines 10-18).
Initially, we note that claims undergoing examination are
given their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the
specification. See Burlington Industries v. Quigg, 822 F.2d
1581, 1583, 3 USPQ2d 1436, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1987), In re Prater,
415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-51 (CCPA 1969).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007