Appeal No. 1999-2259
Application 08/711,614
respect to independent claim 6. Dependent claims 7 and 8, the
patentability of which were not argued separately, stand or
fall with independent claim 6. See In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d
989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 6-8 as unpatentable
over Rinderer and Slicer.
Claims 2 and 3 depend from claim 1 and incorporate the
limitations of “surge clamp”; “an extruded form being cutable
to a length”; and “busway housing”. Having already
established that neither Rinderer or Slicer, alone or in
combination, teach or suggest these required claim
limitations, we find that the Examiner has failed to establish
a prima facie case with respect to dependent claims 2 and 3.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2
and 3 as unpatentable over Rinderer and Slicer.
Considering now independent claim 12, it recites as
follows:
12. A surge protection device for limiting structural
damage which can be incurred by a busway housing and its
enclosed electrical conductors during an electrical short
circuit, said surge protection device comprising:
17
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007