Appeal No. 1996-4118
Application 08/ 084,255
button to be remote would result in a structure that is not a
two terminal circuit protection arrangement. Similarly, the reliance of the Kellenbenz teachings of
elements 52, 54 and 60 in figure 3 is misplaced as well. These elements if used to modify the Nadd
arrangement would result in an arrangement other than a two terminal circuit protection arrangement as
claimed by the Appellants.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 8, and 12
through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nadd in view of Kellenbenz.
Furthermore, we note that the Examiner has used the same reasoning for the rejection of claim 9 in the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nadd in view of Kellenbenz and in further
view of Kumada and Edwards. We fail to find that Kumada and Edwards 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.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007