Appeal No. 97-0289
Application No. 08/111,332
arrangement for ground fault interrupters is “old and well
known in the art” (Answer, pages 3 and 4), and that “[a]
person of ordinary skill
. . . would be able to apply the remote concept to the prior
art with ease due to the fact that both teachings use modular
elements” (Answer, page 5). Appellants’ arguments (Brief,
pages 4 through 6) concerning remote interconnections and
remote testing do not convince us of the nonobviousness of the
invention set forth in claims 7 and 8. Thus, the 35 U.S.C. §
103 rejection of claims 7 and 8 is sustained.
Claims 1 through 3 and 6 differ from claim 7 on appeal in
that they claim a power supply that includes a
rectifier/filter and a regulator. The examiner concludes
(Answer, page 4) that:
Ground faults are known to have a very small
current magnitude that can only be detected and
removed by active circuits with powered elements.
Such circuits are well known to get their power from
the line to be protected and use simple regulators
to power the DC sense amplifier integrated circuit.
The examiner’s conclusions may be true, but we have no
evidence in the record to support such conclusions.
“Allegations concerning specific ‘knowledge’ of the prior art,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007