Appeal No. 97-1002
Application 08/014,379
which were discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain the
rejection of claims 18 and 19 for the reasons discussed above.
3. The rejection of claims 20 and 21 as
unpatentable over St. John and Farrar.
Claims 20 and 21 are independent claims which contain
neither of the features discussed above. Rather, claims 20 and
21 recite a transient voltage surge suppression circuit board
means having “sidewise flexing contactors” contacting the
protruding terminals of a watt-hour meter. Appellant makes two
main arguments in opposition to this rejection. First, appellant
argues that there is no basis to combine the low voltage d.c.
transient suppression teachings of Farrar with the watt-hour
meter of St. John [brief, page 18; reply brief, pages 7-8].
Second, appellant argues that there is no teaching of the
sidewise flexing contactors in Farrar as alleged by the examiner
[brief, page 19]. The examiner responds that the breadth of
these claims permits the combination of Farrar’s teachings with
those of St. John, and the flexing contactors are taught either
by contacts 32 and 36 of Farrar or contacts 34 and 36 of St. John
[answer, pages 11-12]. We have again carefully considered the
record before us, and we find ourselves in agreement with
appellant.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007