Appeal No. 1999-2259
Application 08/711,614
an extruded form having at least one generally flat
longitudinal surface and defining a centrally located passage
extending longitudinally through said extruded form, said
extruded form being cutable into a plurality of surge clamps
each one of said plurality of surge clamps having a particular
length determined by a particular width of the busway housing
on which said surge clamp is to be used, said surge clamps
being transversely positioned on the busway housing such that
said flat surface continuously engages a generally flat
surface of the busway housing.
Claim 12 recites the limitations of “a surge clamp”; “an
extruded form being cutable into a plurality of surge clamps”;
and “busway housing”. We have already established that
neither Rinderer or Slicer, alone or in combination, teach or
suggest these required claim limitations. Therefore, Examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of unpatentability
with respect to independent claim 12. Accordingly, we also
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable
over Rinderer and Slicer.
In summary, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as anticipated by Rinderer.
Additionally, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
18
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007