Appeal No. 96-4027
Application 08/392,663
controller. We find that it would have been obvious to provide the solid state controller as taught by
the combination of Murphy in view of Dougherty, Adamson and Cobb to be placed within the sealed
package as taught by Murphy for the reasons provided by Murphy, to provide superior and more
reliable operation. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9.
On page 12 of the brief, Appellants further argue that claims 1, 3, 6, 8, and 9 relate specifically
to a controller having means or method for protecting a wire to a load, claims 4, 5 and 14 relate to
apparatus for protecting a solid state switch in a controller from thermal damage and claims 10 and 11
relate to a method for protecting a solid state switch from thermal damage
due to power dissipation during current limiting. Appellants further argue on page 13 of the brief that
none of the references suggests protecting a solid state switch from thermal damage and in
particular, none of the references suggests protecting a solid state switch from thermal damage due to
power dissipation when current flowing through the solid state switch to a load is limited to a selected
current.
On this point the Examiner does not appear to respond to Appellants' argument. Upon a
careful review of the references, we also fail to find such a suggestion. Therefore, we will reverse the
rejection as to claims 4, 5, 10, 11 and 14.
Finally, on pages 13 and 14 of the brief, Appellants argue that none of the references teaches or
suggests the specific structure recited in Appellants' claim 2. In particular, Appellants argue that the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007