Appeal No. 2000-0398
Application 08/903,406
As to dependent claim 2, we agree with the appellant’s view
that there is no claimed blocking tab within the indicating lamp
visual access hole 18 which the examiner considers to be correlated
to the claimed window. The rejection of dependent claims 3 and 4 is
sustained because there are no arguments presented against these
dependent claims depending from claim 1. We also reverse the
rejection of claim 5. There are no claimed locking apertures in the
plate proximate to a locking aperture of the circuit breaker cover
taught or suggested in Morris.1
Before we leave the discussion of claim 1 and its dependent
claims, the examiner’s reliance upon Bottelson to show a bezel 62
allowing visual access to both the rating plug assembly and the
circuit breaker interior is misplaced. There appears to us to be
little relevance of the need for this teaching in accordance with
the recitations of the rejected claims on appeal. Even if it may
have been obvious for the artisan to have utilized the entire bezel
assembly approach 62 including the transparent door 180 in the
embodiment of Morris’s invention as a substitution for the rating
plug cover 21, within 35 U.S.C. § 103, there appears to be no need
1 We observe in passing from our study of the specification
as filed that these apertures are only discussed at page 2, lines
23-26 but not in the context of being associated with the detents
such as the detent 38 shown in Figures 4 and 5 of the disclosed
invention, as claimed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007