Appeal No. 97-1002
Application 08/014,379
We note at the outset that dependent claims 4 and 5
depend from non-appealed independent claim 1. The briefs
primarily argue two limitations of these claims which are
allegedly not taught by the applied references. First, appellant
argues that neither Zisa nor Melanson teaches “varistors as the
sole components...adapted to clip transient voltage surges and to
shunt surge current to ground” as recited in independent claims 1
and 14. Second, appellant argues that neither Zisa nor Melanson
teaches the supporting of the surge suppression apparatus by the
blade-like terminals of a watt-hour meter.
With respect to the first point, the examiner argues that
it would have been obvious to the artisan to remove the spark gap
in Zisa or Melanson so as to operate with varistors alone. The
motivation would allegedly be to reduce the number of components
[answer, page 9]. With respect to the second point, the examiner
relies on Zisa as teaching supporting the surge suppression
apparatus on the blade-like terminals of the watt-hour meter.
After a careful review of the applied references and the
arguments of appellant and the examiner, we find ourselves in
agreement with appellant on both points. The examiner and
appellant agree that Zisa discloses a circuit made up of a
variable resistance current limiter in series with an arc
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007