Appeal 2007-3126
Application 10/359,275
represented by the references. See In re Oelrich, 579 F.2d 86, 91 (CCPA 1978)
("the PTO usually must evaluate both the scope and content of the prior art and the
level of ordinary skill solely on the cold words of the literature"); In re GPAC Inc.,
57 F.3d 1573, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (Board did not err in adopting the approach
that the level of skill in the art was best determined by the references of record).
Also, Appellants have made no “secondary considerations” argument.
ZUNICK
Comparing claim 1 to Zunick, the recited “a vacuum assembly having
switching contacts disposed therein, one of the switching contacts being a movable
switching contact that is movable along an axis,” reads on Zunick’s stationary
contact 14 and movable contact 15. The recited “a tube disposed along the axis
and operable to actuate movement of the movable switching contact along the
axis” reads on operating rod or shaft 25, which is formed of a suitable high voltage
insulating material, such as a filament wound epoxy (col. 3, ll. 45-47). Shaft 25 is
connected to the movable contact 15 via a contact rod 20, to which shaft 25 is
connected by a tubular connector 26 (col. 3, ll. 45-48; col. 4, ll. 20-22). Shaft 25 is
tubular (col. 5, l. 5) and receives in its outermost end portion an end connector
member or shaft coupler 49, to which is secured the inner flange of a rolling
diaphragm 43 (col. 5, ll. 39-68). This diaphragm and bellows 22 (surrounding rod
20) cooperate to maintain constant the size of chamber 29, which contains
insulating oil 30 (col. 6, ll. 9-16).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013