Appeal No. 2001-2143
Application No. 09/093,248
Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d
1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
It is our view that the examiner’s rationale for the rejection does not even come
close to stating a prima facie case of obviousness. Although Douglass mentions
nothing about an anode, a cathode or a rectifying means, the three elements
comprising claim 18, for example, or even a diode, the examiner cavalierly holds that
the claimed subject matter would have been obvious “[s]ince it is known in the art to
include the fuse element shown by Douglass in series with any standard discrete pn
diode and the fuse can be connected to either the anode or cathode of the diode”
[answer-page 4].
Thus, from the meager disclosure, by Douglass, of a class J time delay fuse, the
examiner has extended this teaching, with no support, to make obvious the inclusion of
this fuse in a pn diode, the fuse being connected to either the anode or the cathode of
the diode. We find nothing within Douglass, or within the knowledge of the skilled
artisan, which would have led the artisan to use Douglass’ fuse, in any manner, to result
in the instant claimed subject matter.
Moreover, appellant makes the reasonable observation that the artisan would not
consider a J class fuse for use in a solid state circuit either in series with, or in
combination with, pn diodes and we have no convincing rebuttal from the examiner.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007