Appeal 2007-3126
Application 10/359,275
casting 138, which includes the current-sensing transformer 90 in Abdelgawad’s
Figure 5. See Answer 6 (“[I]n column 8, line 14, Abdelgawad discloses epoxy
resin as an encapsulating material [138] for the sensor.”).
Appellants’ response that “Abdelgawad never describes that the pull rod 135
is also provided with a tube” (Reply Br. 2), while accurate, is unconvincing
because it fails to address the rationale of the rejection, which retains Zunick’s
tubular operating rod and relies on Abdelgawad for (1) its teaching that the
voltage-sensor resistors can be located in the operating rod and (2) its teaching that
an epoxy material (e.g., an engineered epoxy resin) can be used to support sensing
components in the desired positions.
Appellants further argue that “any modification of Zunick’s shaft 25 with the
epoxy resin casting 138 of Abdelgawad would render Zunick’s operating unit 4
inoperable since the epoxy resin casting is immoveable while Zunick’s shaft 25 is
connected to movable contact 15 and is required to move within the passageway”
(Reply Br. 3). This argument, too, fails to address the rationale of the rejection,
which as explained above calls for securing the resistors in place inside Zunick’s
tubular shaft 25 with the engineered epoxy material that Abdelgawad uses to make
casting 138. The Examiner has not proposed to add the casting 138 to Zunick.
The argument that “Abdelgawad teaches away from the modification
suggested by the Examiner” (Br. 4) is also unconvincing. Although Abdelgawad
fails to disclose a pull-rod having a tubular shaft formed of a first material filled by
a compound made of a different material, Abdelgawad does not warn against
making or using such a pull-rod. See Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l,
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013