Appeal No. 97-1171
Application 08/488,171
Claims 1 through 11 stand rejected under the first
paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 because the specification as
originally filed does not provide support for the invention as
claimed.
Claims 1 through 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Mason in view of Bereskin and
Staad.
Reference is made to the brief, the answer and several
prior Office Actions for the respective positions of the2
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
All of the rejections are reversed.
The lack of written description rejection of claims 1
through 11 is reversed because the objected to phrase on page
6 of the specification is not in the claims on appeal.
Turning to the obviousness rejection of claims 1 through
11, Mason uses overcurrent relays to determine a current
differential or overcurrent. On page 68, Mason indicates that
another type of differential-relay arrangement uses an
2The Answer may properly refer to a single prior Office Action. The
obviousness rejection in the Answer refers to two previous Office Actions (paper numbers
2 and 4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007