Appeal No. 2001-0114
Application 09/240,712
operation and filling the fuse with sand. In particular, the end
plates 145 and 150 prevent the movement of the elements which
would adversely affect the operation of the fuse.
Upon our view of Grzeczkowski, we find no evidence within
Grzeczkowski to those skilled in the art that the winding
supports need to be defined as a single structure so as to
prevent movement of the winding supports. In fact, Grzeczkowski
teaches just the contrary that the winding supports are separate
elements not connected together. Therefore, we find that the
Examiner has no substantial evidence that it was either known to
one of ordinary skill in the art or suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art to modify the Grzeczkowski reference to obtain
the invention as recited in Appellants’ claims 1 and 16.
Appellants’ reliance on Howard v. Detroit Stove Works for
establishing a material fact is misplaced. In fact, our
reviewing court has counseled the PTO that there are no per se
rules. In In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1570, 37 USPQ2d 1127, 1132
(Fed. Cir. 1995) the Examiner had relied on case law for a
general obvious rule. The Federal Circuit stated that no such
per se rules exist. See Ochiai, 71 F.3d at 1570, 37 USPQ2d at
1132. Cir. 1995). The Court stated there is not “Durden
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007