Appeal No. 1999-2207
Application No. 08/967,152
Therefore, we find that appellants have overcome the rejection by showing insufficient
evidence of prima facie obviousness.
. The examiner relies solely on the teachings of Allina and “design choice” for the
physical placement of the thermal fuse and that the physical arrangement of the thermal
fuse and varistor would have “no impact” on the operation of the circuit. (See answer at
pages 4-5.) We disagree with the examiner’s position. In our view, the examiner’s
position is mere speculation as to the specific placement of the thermal fuse relative to the
geometric center of the varistor in the teaching of Allina. From our review of the teachings
of Allina, Allina does not specifically identify where the thermal fuse is located within the
fuses 112a and 112b (or 118a' or 118b') nor does Allina disclose a need or desire to have
the thermal fuse adjacent to the geometric center of varistor 14 or 14'. (See Allina with
respect to Figure 9 in combination with Figures 5 and 6.) The examiner maintains that
thermal fuse 112a is near the center of varistor 14. (See brief at page 4.) We disagree
with the examiner’s finding. Rather, in our view, it is speculation to assume that the thermal
element is near the geometric center since Allina teaches the use of two thermal fuses
where 112b is clearly not near the geometric center and neither is thermal fuse 118b'. Nor
does the embodiments in Figures 3 and 4 teach the motivation to locate the thermal fuse
near the geometric center of the varistor. Here, it is our view that the examiner is merely
speculating as to
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007