Appeal No. 1999-2209 Page 6
Application No. 09/069,355
1992). If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d
1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (final rejection, page 2) is that
"Morris et al. shows everything claimed except the common
actuator testing both a groundfault [sic] condition or an arc
fault condition." To make up for this deficiency in Morris,
the examiner turns to Mackenzie for a teaching of a circuit
interrupter having both ground fault and arc fault detectors,
as well as a device for indicating which of the detectors
caused the fault, upon the occurrence of a fault condition.
The examiner concludes (id.) that "[i]t would have been
obvious, as a means to insure proper operation, to use a test
means as well as an indicator for a fault."
Appellants assert (answer, pages 4 and 5) that:
Morris et al. discloses a circuit breaker having
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007