Appeal No. 1996-4118
Application 08/ 084,255
electrical circuit. Thus, we find that Appellants' claims 1, 10 and 11 positively recite a two terminal
circuit protection arrangement 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. In addition, we find that Appellants' claim 12 positively recites a two terminal
circuit protection arrangement 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 electrical circuit.
Our reviewing court states in In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984) the following:
The Supreme Court in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966), focused on
the procedural and evidentiary processes in reaching a conclusion under Section 103.
As adapted to ex parte procedure, Graham is interpreted as continuing to place the
"burden of proof on the Patent Office which requires it to produce the factual basis for
its rejection of an application under section 102 and 103". Citing In re Warner, 379
F.2d 1011, 1020, 154 USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967).
We fail to find that the Examiner has produced the factual basis for the rejection of claims 1, 2,
5 through 9, and 12 through 17. The Examiner's reliance on the Nadd push button 49 shown in figure
7 fails to provide any evidence of a two terminal circuit protection arrangement which is capable of
being reset from the non-conducting state into a conducting state by a remotely controlled interrupting
means. The push button 49 is local and is not remote and that any modifications of having the push
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007