Appeal No. 97-1002
Application 08/014,379
(ii) being adapted to fit around the blade-like terminals
normally protruding from a watt-hour meter into jaws of a powered
socket within an electrical utility box or panel, and
(iii) further adapted to be supported at least in part by
contact with whatever blade-like terminals may engage the jaws of
the socket.
The examiner relies on the following references from
rejections made in the final rejection:
St. John 2,606,232 Aug. 05, 1952
Zisa 3,725,745 Apr. 03, 1973
Melanson 3,914,657 Oct. 21, 1975
Farrar et al. (Farrar) 4,726,638 Feb. 23, 1988
Rozanski et al. (Rozanski) 4,875,137 Oct. 17, 1989
Brady 5,010,438 Apr. 23, 1991
The examiner relies on the following reference from new
rejections made in the examiner’s answer:
Dell Orfano 4,089,032 May 09, 1978
Claims 4, 5 and 14-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. The rejections of the appealed claims are set forth by
the examiner as follows:
1. Claims 4, 5 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Zisa in view of Melanson.
2. Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Zisa in view of Melanson, Rozanski and
Brady.
3. Claims 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over St. John in view of Farrar.
4. Claims 4, 5 and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Zisa in view of Melanson and
Dell Orfano.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007