Ex parte EDWARD F. ALLINA - Page 3




          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