Appeal No. 95-1405
Application 08/095,276
Carlson in view of Davis as to claims 21 to 27 and Fisher in
view of Edmunds as to claim 28.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and
the examiner, reference is made to the Brief and the Answer
for the respective details thereof.
Opinion
The rejection of claims 21 through 27 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 in light of the collective teachings of Carlson and Davis
is sustained. As set forth at page 3 of the Final Rejection,
the examiner considers that Carlson discloses all of the
claimed features except for the use of the sponge floats made
of silicon. We agree. In the context of this reasoning of
the examiner, we note that the claimed sponge floats
comprising silicon is only set forth in dependent claim 24 and
not in independent claim 21, for example. Respective Figure 4
of Carlson shows, for example, bus duct 20 and cover 22
comprising the claimed housing. The various bus bars recited
in claim 21 having terminals extending from the housing as
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007