Monday, November 26, 2012

Inherent storage in a database

A claim element in Ex parte MCGLYNN was

a solar tracker that stores solar angle data in a database, processes the stored solar angle data and transmits control signals to cause the platform to be continuously positioned by the drive both in azimuth and altitude angles so as to align the concentrator with the rays of the sun as the sun traverses the sky so that the rays of the sun are focused on the solar cell

As to prior art:

Appellants argue that Horton fails to disclose that the solar angle data is stored in a database (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4). Appellants contend that a “stored program” is not solar angle data stored in a database. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4. Appellants contend that Horton’s sun tracker may use photodetectors or other optical components to detect the position of the sun. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4. Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s reason for combining Horton’s sun tracker system with Lamb as modified by Wanlass and King. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 4.

The Appellants lost:

The Examiner finds that Horton’s disclosure of transmitting sun angle data from the central computer means that the data must inherently be stored in a database in the central computer. Id. We agree.
The Examiner’s findings are reasonably supported by Horton’s disclosures. Horton’s disclosure that during “automatic” control mode the sun angle data is sent from the central computer, in our view, indicates that the data is stored as a collection of related data in the central computer for transmitting to the other components of the sun tracker system. While Appellants contend that the sun angle data in Horton may be provided by sensors, that does not change the fact that data is sent through a central computer which must organize the data for easy retrieval and transmission when requested (i.e., a database).

Appellants also lost on result effective variable:

Appellants do not respond to the Examiner’s finding that the band gap is a result-effective variable (Reply Br. 4-5). We understand the Examiner’s rejection to be that the composition of the graded layer would have been optimized to arrive at a suitable band gap for the graded layer, such as the claimed 1.5 eV, relative to the other layers as taught by Wanlass.


Post a Comment

<< Home