Ex Parte Ketchum - Page 2




                Appeal No. 2005-0015                                                                             Page 2                   
                Application No. 09/788,274                                                                                                


                invention.  In both embodiments, appellant’s leak point wetness sensor utilizes only a                                    
                single temperature sensor, said temperature sensor 28 being mounted to the instrument                                     
                body at a location where it will be contacted by leaked fluid.  In the first embodiment                                   
                (Figure 4), a circuit 33 generates and provides a signal, usually a voltage, simulative of                                
                some lower temperature than would be expected from the liquid, such signal usually                                        
                being proportional to ambient.  The signal output from the temperature sensor 28 is                                       
                compared with the signal from circuit 33 by comparator 32 to determine when leaked                                        
                liquid has wetted the temperature sensor 28.  In the second embodiment (Figure 5), the                                    
                signal from temperature sensor 28 is provided to a rate of change detector 40 adapted                                     
                to react to a quick rise in temperature, thereby indicating wetting of the temperature                                    
                sensor by leaked liquid.  A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix                                  
                to the appellant's brief.                                                                                                 
                        The following rejection is before us for review.                                                                  
                        Claims 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by                                        
                Ketchum1.                                                                                                                 
                        Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                                     
                the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer                                        
                (Paper No. 12) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to                                   
                the brief (Paper No. 11) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.                                                      
                                                               OPINION                                                                    

                        1 U.S. Pat. No. 5,862,804, issued January 26, 1999.                                                               





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007