Appeal No. 1997-2216
Application No. 08/392,661
set length, and that after such time expires no further pulses
are generated. Thus, the examiner has failed to give a
reasonable interpretation to the claims. The first step of
any analysis under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or 103 requires an
understanding of what is claimed. As we have indicated, the
examiner's interpretation of the claims is flawed.
Accordingly, we vacate the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 6 and 8 and the obviousness rejections of claims 7 and
9 through 13.
II. NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
Claims 1 through 6, 8, and 12 are rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Sears in view of Zocholl.
Sears discloses (column 3, lines 29-33) an overload protector
between a power supply and an electrical device which is
represented by a load resistor, i.e., series connected in a
line of a circuit to be protected. When subjected to an
overcurrent, the overload protector assumes a condition in
which very little current is delivered to the load, or rather
an open state (see column 4, lines 3-18). The protection
circuit includes an automatic
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007