Appeal No. 2002-0582
Application No. 09/083,936
The Examiner argues that Appellant's claims do not exclude
the cover from being integral with the arc box. The Examiner
acknowledges that Kakizoe does not show a venting passage in the
arc box. The Examiner instead relies on Figures 5 and 6 of
Manthe for showing the gas blow-arc openings. See pages 3, 4 and
6 of the Examiner's answer.
We note that Appellant's independent claim 6 recites
an arc box and an arc cover . . . wherein a gas blow-
off opening section, formed by said arc box and said
arc cover.
Appellant's independent claim 9 recites
an arc box and an arc cover . . . wherein a void along
an end surface of the arc-extinguishing grid plates is
communicated and connected to a path substantially
vertically formed by the arc cover and the arc box to
form an L-shaped path, so that a gas blow-off opening
section having the L-shaped path is opened to a side
face of the arc box.
Appellant's independent claim 12 recites
an arc-box and an arc cover . . ., wherein a gas blow-
off opening section, formed by said arc box and said
arc cover, is covered by a plurality of subdividing
projections provided from said arc cover.
Thus, the plain language of the claims recites two separate
elements, an arc box and an arc cover, and that these two
elements form a gas blow-off opening. Therefore, we fail to find
55
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007