Appeal No. 1999-2207
Application No. 08/967,152
long as the orientation of the fuse does not change the operation of the fuse, the fuse may
be placed in any orientation. (See answer at pages 7-8.) We agree with the examiner, but
find that the examiner has not made any findings that the orientation recited in claim 14
does not change the operation of the circuit. The examiner merely maintains that a prima
facie case of obviousness has been shown and that the burden has been shifted to
appellants. We disagree with the examiner. The examiner then states that the skilled
artisan is deemed to know something about the art separate from the literal disclosure of
the references. (See answer at pages 7-8.) We agree with the examiner, but the
examiner has not set forth what this knowledge would be or how it would be used in
combination with the teachings of Allina. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not
established a prima facie case of obviousness, and we will not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 14 and its dependent claims 7 and 8.
`With respect to independent claim 13 and the use of thermally conductive
adhesive, the examiner maintains that even though not disclosed by Allina, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to use
adhesive to prevent accidental separation of the fuse and the geometrical center of the
body of the varistor to ensure proper actuation to suppress transients. (See answer at
page 9.) Again, we find that the examiner has not established a basis
in the prior art or a convincing line of reasoning for this conclusion. The examiner is
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007