Appeal No. 1996-4118
Application 08/ 084,255
Appellants' independent claim 12.
In response to these arguments, the Examiner states on pages 6 and 7 of the answer that
Appellants' claim language that the two terminal circuit protection arrangement which is requiring
capable of being reset remotely has no probative value. Appellants argue that Nadd's element 49 in
figure 7 and Kellenbenz' elements 52, 54 and 60 in figure 3 disclose and teach an arrangement which is
capable of being reset as claimed by Appellants.
As pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the claim. "[T]he
name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529
(Fed. Cir. 1998).
We note that independent claims 1, 10 and 11 all recite a two terminal circuit protection
arrangement which is intended to be series connected in a line of a circuit to be protected; and which is
capable of being reset from the non-conducting state into a conducting state by a remotely controlled
interrupting means which interrupts current in the line of the circuit to be protected. We note that
Appellants' claim 12 recites an electrical circuit which comprises a circuit voltage or current source, a
load and a current-carrying line connecting the source and load, the circuit including a two terminal
circuit protection arrangement that: is series connected in the current-carrying line and which is capable
of being reset from the non-conducting state into a conducting state by a remotely controlled
interrupting means which disconnects the circuit voltage or current source, or the load, from the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007