Appeal No. 1997-3253
Application 08/357,196
cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996), citing W. L. Gore &
Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548, 220 USPQ
303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Appellants argue on pages 9-12 of the brief, that neither
reference teaches or suggests positioning a thermistor in the
vicinity of the driving source to shut off electricity to the
driving source as a result of heat generated by the driving
source from the overload condition. On page 2 of the reply
brief, Appellants further argue that neither reference teaches
or suggests the two functional limitations recited in
Appellants' claim for a thermistor means for shutting off
electricity to the driving source as a result of heat
generated either by (1) a driving source locking current which
flows through the thermistor upon complete closure or complete
opening of the glass door, or (2) the driving source from an
overload condition. In particular, Appellants argue that
Sobiepanek, taken as a whole, actually teaches against the
aforementioned functional limitations. Appellants point out
that Sobiepanek teaches that if the thermistors 17 and 18 were
mechanically mounted in the vicinity of the motor windings 1
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007