Appeal No. 97-1002
Application 08/014,379
attributed to them by the examiner. Melanson clearly shows the
surge suppression circuitry connected within and supported by the
baseplate 10 of the watt-hour meter. There is no support
received from the blade-like terminals of the meter. Zisa shows
a blade like terminal 20 connected to the meter circuitry but not
connected to the surge suppression circuitry. It is also clear
that the terminal 20 does not provide support for the surge
suppression circuitry 24 because this device is clearly supported
by base 18 as described by Zisa [column 2, lines 60-63]. Thus,
based upon this record, the applied prior art does not support
the teachings found by the examiner. Therefore, this reason
alone would also have been sufficient for us to reverse this
particular rejection of claims 4, 5 and 14-17.
2. The rejection of claims 18 and 19 as
unpatentable over Zisa, Melanson,
Rozanski and Brady.
These claims depend from independent claim 14 and,
therefore, incorporate all the limitations of claim 14 just
discussed. Zisa and Melanson are insufficient to support the
rejection for reasons discussed above. Rozanski and Brady were
cited to meet particular mounting features of the varistors, but
they do not overcome the innate deficiencies of Zisa and Melanson
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007