Appeal No. 2000-0368
Application No. 08/789,659
Claims 1, 9, 17, 18, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Beihoff. Claims 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Beihoff in view of MacKenzie.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final rejection
(Paper No. 12, mailed June 19, 1998), examiner's answer (Paper No. 21, mailed Jan 20,
1999) for the examiner's reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief
(Paper No. 18, filed November 23, 1998) and reply brief (Paper No. 24, filed May 21,
1999) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The examiner maintains that Beihoff teaches a sensor (resistor 162) coupled to one
of the secondary lines for monitoring the rate of change of the electric current in the
secondary line, but Beihoff does not disclose that the sensor produces a signal
representing the rate of change of the electric current in the secondary line. (See final
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007