Appeal No. 95-1405
Application 08/095,276
When the rejection of claim 28 is considered with Edmunds
being the base reference teaching essentially all of the
subject matter including the various slots to receive the
various bus bars according to the detailed configuration set
forth in claim 28 in light of Fisher’s teachings, we also
reverse this view of the rejection. The single moulded
version of the invention in Edmunds in Figure 1 is shown in
the other figures as comprising a support moulding 10
comprising the claimed base portion as well as the separate
premoulded support 29 or claimed top portion with grooves and
recesses for the bus bars therein in Figure 2. The flatness
of the bus bar sections claimed is certainly apparent in this
figure as well as broadly recited planes of the bus bar
sections being arranged generally perpendicular to the plane
of the base portion 10. The bus bars 22a through 22c are
snugly positioned in the receiving slots of premoulded support
unit 29 in Figure 2 in a general noncrossing relationship
relative to each other in the manner claimed. The ratio of
the height to the width of the bus bars 22 would have been an
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007