Appeal No. 96-4027
Application 08/392,663
statement is included that the claims of the group do not stand or fall together and, in the
argument under paragraph (c)(8) of this section, appellant explains why the claims of
the group are believed to be separately patentable. Merely pointing out differences in
what the claims cover is not an argument as to why the claims are separately
patentable.
We will, thereby, consider the Appellants' claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 as standing or falling together and we
will treat claim 1 as a representative claim of that group.
On page 6 of the brief, Appellants argue that Appellants' apparatus and method provide a
complete sealed solid state controller. Appellants further argue that there is no showing or suggestion
in the cited art of a complete, sealed unit.
On page 5 of the answer, the Examiner points out that Murphy teaches that the components are
within a housing in column 5, lines 29-33, as well as in column 13, line 20. The Examiner argues that
the Murphy housing meets the "sealed package" limitation as recited in Appellants' claims.
Turning to Appellants' claim 1, we find that claim 1 recites "solid state controller ... comprising a
sealed package in which is disposed." Murphy teaches in column 2, lines 1-12, a solid state controller
with a common housing. Furthermore, Murphy teaches in column 3, lines 26-31, that "it is desirable to
maximize and assemble for compactness the number of required electrical components to be associated
with the circuit breaker and that can be placed within the circuit breaker housing for superior and more
reliable operation." Murphy further teaches that one object of the invention is to install the current
sensor DS, the power supply PS for the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007