Appeal No. 1999-0425
Application No. 08/788,969
to a single paper that lays out any cogent rationale for the rejection. Moreover, it is still
not clear from the record whether the claims are rejected over a combination of
references or over each reference individually.
While we clearly have cause, in the instant case, to remand this application to the
examiner for further explanation, this application has been pending now for four years; it
has been two and one half years since appellant filed the brief and we will not
inconvenience appellant any further with another delay. Moreover, based on the rather
abbreviated actions by the examiner throughout this prosecution and on the examiner’s
failure to clearly state the rejection and the rationale therefore, although having ample
opportunity to do so, we doubt that a remand would result in a more detailed statement of
the rejection and an explanation thereof.
Our review of the references indicates that Pardue is not even directed to a system for
detecting “arcing faults,” as claimed, but rather to a ground fault interrupter system.
Therefore, there would appear to be no “rate of change of electrical current in the line
conductor” to be monitored, as required by independent claim 1. Rather, a ground fault
interrupter system, such as the one disclosed by Pardue, would be interested only in
monitoring the total current so that if the amount of current returning to the source is less
than that transmitted, it is known that there is a leakage, and hence a ground fault,
somewhere in the system. With regard to MacKenzie, the examiner has failed to, at least,
indicate where in that reference is a “test line coupled to said current transformer in the
same manner as said line conductor for subjecting said transformer to a test signal
simulating a line current produced by an arcing fault.”
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007