Appeal No. 2005-0233
Application 10/085,138
Appellant argues that the delay disclosed in Holmquest is
a post-detection delay whereas the claimed invention recites a
delay occurring prior to the sensing circuits being operational.
Appellant also argues that the delay in Holmquest reduces false
trips of the relay related to minor fluctuations whereas the
claimed invention does not delay the operation of a relay, but
instead, delays operation of the sensing circuits each time the
supervisory circuit is powered on. Appellant argues that Tran
also fails to disclose a delay circuit as claimed. Appellant
notes that the delay in Tran is for the DC power supply and not a
delay for the sensing circuits as claimed. Finally, appellant
argues that one of skill in this art would not be motivated to
combine the Holmquest teachings with the teachings of Tran
because none of the prior art can distinguish between phases or
delay sensing circuits [brief, pages 5-9].
The examiner responds that Holmquest discloses a delay at
every triggering event including the power-up process. The
examiner also responds that Holmquest and Tran delay operation of
the sensing circuits in the same manner disclosed by appellant,
which is by delaying the acceptance of the output signals. The
examiner notes that the delay in the disclosed invention is a
post-detection delay in the same manner as taught by Holmquest
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007