Appeal No. 1998-2485
Application 08/711,996
Appellant points to specific language in the bodies of
independent claims 7, 9, and 10 that requires that the fuse
is not accessible for replacement from outside the housing
(RBr5-6). The Examiner does not respond to these arguments
in Paper No. 22, which notes entry of the Reply Brief and
states that no further response is necessary. We find that
claims 7, 9, and 10 require that the fuse is not accessible
from outside the housing and, thus, conclude that the
Examiner erred as a matter of law in interpreting the claims
to not require this feature. It is uncontroverted that the
fuses in Eberhard are removable from outside the housing and
do not meet the limitation of the fuse being inaccessible
from outside the appliance housing. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 7-10 is reversed.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION PURSUANT TO 37 CFR § 1.196(b)
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, based on a lack of written description in
the original disclosure. Claims 9 and 10 recite that the
plug body is female, having female electrical connectors for
receiving an external mating male power plug. However, what
is disclosed in the application, as filed, is a plug body
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007