Appeal No. 95-3382
Application 07/967,465
Melocik et al. (Melocik) 4,511,947 Apr. 16, 1985
Claims 1 to 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As
evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon Melocik alone.
Rather than repeat the positions of the appellants and the
examiner, reference is made to the brief and answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We reverse the above stated rejection of claims 1 to 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103. We are in general agreement with the reasoning
set forth by appellants in the brief including the position
advocated at page 5 of the brief that Melocik does not find a
faulty load and isolate it and then recompute the allowable
current and that Melocik is not concerned with individually
testing each load based on the stored current value for each
respective load once it has been determined that the overall load
current is too high as expressed at page 7 of the brief.
This above noted reasoning of appellants is consistent with
the language of the last two clauses of independent claim 1 on
appeal, the substance of which is expressed in slightly different
form in independent method claim 4 on appeal.
In accordance with the normal operating sequences specified
between columns 4 and 6 of Melocik, a common, total current
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007