Appeal No. 2005-0233
Application 10/085,138
Specifically, the operation of sensing circuits 104 in the
disclosed invention is not delayed in the manner claimed. Each
of sensing circuits 104 is initially operative to apply a signal
to activation circuit 108. It is the gating of these signals by
delay circuit 106 which implements the delay. Thus, it is the
recognition of the sensing signals which is delayed, not the
operation of the sensing circuits as claimed. The operation of
the time delay in Holmquest acts to delay the recognition of the
signals from sensors 12, 13 and 14. We find that this operation
of Holmquest meets the claimed delay circuit to the same extent
that appellant’s disclosed delay circuit supports the claimed
invention. Thus, the delay in Holmquest is a post-detection
delay to the same extent that the delay in appellant’s disclosed
invention is a post-detection delay.
Appellant’s argument that none of the prior art can
distinguish between phases is incorrect. As noted by the
examiner, Holmquest clearly teaches three separate sensors 12-14
which are each operable to detect errors associated with a
different one of the three phases of the power supply.
Therefore, Holmquest clearly distinguishes between the three
phases of the power supply.
With respect to appellant’s argument that the claimed
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007