Ex Parte Douglass et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 28, 2019

14321038 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/321,038 07/01/2014
81735 7590 07/02/2019
Armstrong Teasdale LLP (16463)
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Stephen Douglass
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14-BUS-018 US CIPl 1944
EXAMINER
VORTMAN, ANATOLY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2019 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
USpatents@armstrongteasdale.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT STEPHEN DOUGLASS and
JOHN MICHAEL FINK
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
Technology Center 2800
Before LINDA M. GAUDETTE, LILAN REN, and
JANEE. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
GAUDETTE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
The Appellant1 requests reconsideration of our Decision2 affirming
the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12-29, and 39--46 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the combination of Pimpis (US
5,426,411, issued June 20, 1995) and Douglass (US 5,736,918, issued April
7, 1998)). Request for Rehearing ("Request") filed June 17, 2019. The
Appellant contends our affirmance of the Examiner's rejections over the
combination of Pimpis and Douglass was based on erroneous interpretations
of claims 1 and 20, and that we should have designated our affirmance of
these rejections as new grounds of rejection. See generally Request.
We tum first to the Appellant's contention that we erred in our
interpretation of claims 1 and 20.
The Appellant contends our affirmance of the prior art rejections
based on the combination of Pimpis and Douglass was based on an overly
broad interpretation of the claims as encompassing fuse
elements/mechanisms connected both in parallel and in series. See, e.g.,
Request 17. The Appellant argues that "[t]he Examiner clearly did not
interpret the claims to encompass fuse elements/melting mechanisms
connected both in series and in parallel as alleged by the Board in the
Decision," but "consistently applied the claim language to encompass
parallel-connected fuse elements or parallel-connected melting
mechanisms." Id. at 5---6. The Appellant directs us to paragraphs in the Final
1 The Appellant is the Applicant, Eaton Intelligent Power Limited.
Application Data Sheet, filed March 13, 2019. In the Appeal Brief, the
Appellant identified Eaton Corporation plc, the parent company of Eaton
Intelligent Power Limited, as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief filed
Feb. 23, 2018.
2 Decision on Appeal entered April 18, 2019 ("Dec.").
2
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
Office Action ("Final") and the Examiner's Answer in support of this
argument. See, e.g., id. at 3-5.
We are persuaded that we misapprehended the Examiner's
interpretation of the claims as encompassing both series and parallel-
connected fuse elements/melting mechanisms. Therefore, we modify our
Decision to the extent that we characterize our construction of the claim
terms "mechanically and electrically connected" and "connected" as in
agreement with the Examiner's interpretation, and to the extent that we
characterize the Examiner's interpretation of the claims as encompassing
series-connected fuse elements/melting mechanisms. However, for the
reasons discussed below, we are not convinced of error in our interpretation
of the claims as encompassing fuse elements/melting mechanisms connected
both in series and in parallel.
In our Decision, we explicitly construed the terms "mechanically and
electrically connected" ( claim 1) and "connected" ( claims 20, 23) under the
broadest reasonable interpretation standard. See Dec. 7-9. The claim term
"mechanically and electrically connected" is used to specify the connection
of the first end of each of the short circuit fuse element and the overload fuse
element to the first terminal fabrication, and the connection of the second
end of each of the short circuit fuse element and the overload fuse element to
the second terminal fabrication. See id. at 4 (reproducing claim 1 ). Similarly,
the term "connected" in claim 20 is used to define the connection of each of
the first and second melting mechanisms to the first and second end plates.
See id. at 5 (reproducing claim 20). Based on our review of these terms in
light of the Specification, we construed the terms "mechanically and
electrically connected" and "connected" as encompassing both direct and
3
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
indirect connections of the fuse element ends to the terminal fabrications,
and concluded that the broadest reasonable interpretations of claims 1 and 20
encompass fuse elements/mechanisms connected both in parallel and in
series ( e.g., where each fuse element is not connected directly to a terminal
fabrication at one end, but is indirectly connected to that terminal fabrication
via the other fuse element). Id. at 9.
The Appellant argues our interpretation is "unreasonably broad by
expansively reading the Specification to include series-connected fuse
elements that the Appellants have nowhere described or illustrated." Request
9. The Appellant points out that in all Specification embodiments, each of
the fuse elements is directly connected to the terminal fabrications and,
therefore, the fuse elements necessarily are connected in parallel. See id.
Given the broad claim language here, which on its face encompasses both
parallel and series-connected fuse elements, we are not persuaded that the
mere absence of an explicit example of series-connected fuse elements in the
written description supports a narrower claim construction. Cf Santarus,
Inc. v. Par Pharm., Inc., 694 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ("Negative
claim limitations are adequately supported when the specification describes
a reason to exclude the relevant limitation."); SciMed Life Sys., Inc. v.
Advanced Cardiovascular Sys., Inc., 242 F.3d 1337, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
("Where the specification makes clear that the invention does not include a
particular feature, that feature is deemed to be outside the reach of the claims
of the patent, even though the language of the claims, read without reference
to the specification, might be considered broad enough to encompass the
feature in question.").
4
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
As stated in our Decision (see Dec. 7), during prosecution, the Patent
Office gives claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with
the specification, and the claim language must be read in light of the
specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1260 (Fed. Cir. 2011). "Construing
claims broadly during prosecution is not unfair to the applicant ... because
the applicant has the opportunity to amend the claims to obtain more precise
claim coverage." In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989)
( stating that the broadest reasonable construction of claims is used to
identify ambiguities in claims during prosecution when the claims can be
amended). The Appellant has not explained sufficiently why our claim
interpretation is unreasonable given the Specification's disclosure that
"[ w ]hile a particular fuse element geometry and arrangement is shown, other
types of fuse elements, fuse element geometries, and arrangements of fuse
elements are possible in other embodiments," Dec. 9 ( quoting Spec. ,r 55).
See generally Request 6-11; cf id. at 14 (quoting US 5,604,474 ("One kind
of [ full range fuse] employs two types of elements connected in a series
electrical relationship. One element is primarily responsible for interrupting
high fault currents, while the other element is primarily responsible for
interrupting low fault currents .... " (emphasis added))).
According to the Appellant, we "overlook[ ed] that the Specification,
considered as a whole and in context, describes 'mechanical and electrical
connections' in a lexicographic manner that distinguishes them from indirect
mechanical connections in the assembly of components." Request 8. The
5
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
Appellant directs us to several paragraphs in the Specification in support of
this argument. See id.
"To act as its own lexicographer, a patentee must 'clearly set forth a
definition of the disputed claim term' other than its plain and ordinary
meaning." Continental Circuits LLC v. Intel Corp., 915 F.3d 788, 796
(quoting Thorner v. Sony Comput. Entm 't Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2012)). "It is not enough for a patentee to simply disclose a single
embodiment or use a word in the same manner in all embodiments, the
patentee must 'clearly express an intent' to redefine the term." Thorner, 669
F.3d at 1365 (quoting Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527
F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). "To disavow claim scope, the
specification must contain 'expressions of manifest exclusion or restriction,
representing a clear disavowal of claim scope."' Continental Circuits, 915
F .3d at 797 ( quoting Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton, Dickinson & Co.,
653 F.3d 1296, 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2011)).
We have reviewed the Specification paragraphs cited by the
Appellant, but do not agree that this disclosure, or any other disclosure in the
Specification, provides an explicit definition of "mechanically and
electrically connected" or "connected." Nor do we find any language that
amounts to a clear disavowal of a full-range power fuse wherein the short
circuit fuse element and the overload fuse element are connected in series.
The Appellant argues the preposition "to"- e.g., in the claim 1 phrase
"a first end [of the fuse element] mechanically and electrically connected to
the first terminal fabrication" ( emphasis added) and the claim 20 phrase
"each of the first and second melting mechanisms ... connected to the first
and second end plates" ( emphasis added}-"conveys the point of connection
6
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
between each recited 'end' and the component to which each recited 'end' is
joined." Request 10 (quoting the Merriam-Webster dictionary, definition la:
"used as a function word to indicate movement or an action or condition
suggestive of movement toward a place, person, or thing reached,"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/to ). We are not persuaded that
this definition supports an interpretation of the argued claim language as
requiring a direct connection. Moreover, we find definition 1 c supports an
interpretation of "to" as used in the argued claim phrases as encompassing
either a direct or an indirect connection. See id. (" 1 c-used as a function
word to indicate contact or proximity" (emphasis added)). Further, we are
not persuaded that the ordinary artisan would understand from the
Specification's description of the fuse elements as "'mechanically and
electrically joined to' the connector portions," Request 10 ( citing Spec.
,r,r 92, 106), that the claims require a direct connection between each end of
the fuses with respective terminal fabrications. See https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/join (1 b: "to connect"; 2: "to put or bring into close
association or relationship").
In sum, for the reasons discussed above, the Appellant has not
persuaded us of error in our interpretation of claims 1 and 20 as
encompassing fuse elements/mechanisms connected in parallel or in series.
The Appellant contends we erred in determining the preamble
recitation of "a compact, full-range power fuse" in claims 1 and 20 does not
limit the scope of the claims. See Request 12. For the reasons discussed
below, the Appellant's argument, even if correct, does not persuade us that
we erred in our Decision to affirm the Examiner's rejection based on the
combination of Pimpis and Douglass.
7
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
In the Appeal Brief, the Appellant argued "[n]one of the cited art
teaches a compact, full-range power fuse generally or specifically, let alone
the compact, full-range power fuse of the invention having the fuse
assembly recited." Appeal Br. 29. In the Rehearing Request, the Appellant
argues "[t]he 'compact' nature of the ... invention as described ... and
claimed is ... clearly related in a lexicographic manner to the structure of
the [claimed] power-fuse ... and gives meaning to the claims in an
important aspect." Request 20-21. We have reviewed the Specification
disclosure relied on by the Appellant in support of this argument, but are not
persuaded of error in our determination that the preamble term "compact"
does not limit the scope of the claims.
The term "compact" appears only in the claim preambles, and the
Specification describes the field of the invention as "relat[ing] generally to
electrical circuit protection fuses and methods of manufacture, and more
specifically to the manufacture of high voltage, full-range power fuses"
(Spec. ,r 2), i.e., the Specification does not use the term "compact" in
describing the field of the invention. The Specification discloses that
"[r]elative to known high voltage power fuses, the exemplary fuse
embodiments advantageously offer relatively smaller and more compact
physical package size" (id. ,r 35 (emphasis added)). The Specification,
however, does not clearly define what is meant by the term "compact," and
the Appellant has not provided evidence that the term "compact" had a
known meaning in the field of high voltage, full-range power fuses at the
time of the invention. In other words, the term "compact" "offers no distinct
definition of any of the claimed invention's limitations, ... [and] is of no
significance to claim construction." Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard
8
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The Specification provides a
specific example showing an overall size reduction of about 50% in housing
length, housing radius, and overall total length for an embodiment of the
inventive fuse as compared to a conventional prior art fuse. See Spec. ,r,r 40-
41. The Specification also provides comparisons showing power density of
an embodiment of the inventive fuse exceeds power densities of UL Class T,
J, and R fuses of similar ratings, noting that the inventive fuse "at each rating
is ... a fraction of the size of conventional fuses operable to interrupt
comparable power circuitry." See id. ,r,r 68---69. However, limitations relating
to size and power density are recited only in various dependent claims.
"[T]he presence of a dependent claim that adds a particular limitation gives
rise to a presumption that the limitation in question is not present in the
independent claim." Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1314--15 (Fed.
Cir. 2005) ( en bane). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in our
determination that the term "compact" is not a claim limitation. Moreover,
even if the term "compact" is construed as a limitation, we are not persuaded
of error in our affirmance of the Examiner's rejections for the reasons
discussed infra.
The Appellant argues "[t]he operation of the power fuse described and
recited in claim 1 ... turns on the 'full-range' operation of the parallel-
connected fuse elements and how one of the fuse elements provided may not
initially be affected by the defined current conditions or fault conditions."
Appeal Br. 12. As to claim 20, the Appellant adds that the body of claim 20
recites "a 'full-range fuse element assembly' including parallel-connected
melting mechanisms that likewise is clearly an aspect of the compact power
fuse of the invention." Id. As to the remaining preamble language, the
9
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
Appellant argues "the term 'full-range' is a term of art ... which does give
meaning to the claimed invention." Request 13. According to the Appellant,
as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, a "full-range"
fuse, unlike other types of fuses, does not open in response to
either a short circuit current or an overload current as the
Examiner alleged. A "full-range" fuse is instead specifically
designed to respond to both a short circuit current and an
overload current with equal effectiveness to interrupt current
flow through the fuse.
Id. The Appellant relies on three United States patents in support of its
contention that the term "full-range" "imparts structural and functional
connotations." Id. at 13-14.
We have reviewed the quoted language from the patents relied upon
by the Appellant, but do not find support for the Appellant's assertion that a
"full-range" fuse is designed to respond to both short circuit and overload
currents "with equal effectiveness to interrupt current flow through the fuse."
Id. at 13. Rather, the cited references evince that one of ordinary skill in the
art would understand the adjective "full-range" as describing a fuse that "can
clear any current that causes the fuse link to open when operated at rated
voltage or lower[, e.g.,] ... a short-circuit or a sustained overcurrent," and
that the structure of a full-range fuse typically includes "a tube of insulation,
end terminals, a fusible link between the terminals and an arc-quenching
filler, usually sand." Request 14 (quoting US 4,893,106 (emphasis omitted)).
These features are recited in the bodies of claims 1 and 20. "The use of
different language in the preamble than in the body of the claims does not
suggest that the preamble imposes a limitation. Rather it is assumed that the
preamble language is duplicative of the language found in the body of the
claims or merely provides context for the claims, absent any indication to the
10
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
contrary in the claims [or] the specification .... " Symantec Corp. v.
Computer Assocs. Int 'l, Inc., 522 F.3d 1279, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
Accordingly, we are not convinced of error in our determination that the
claim 1 and claim 20 preambles are not limiting. Moreover, even if the term
"full-range" is construed as a limitation, we are not persuaded of error in our
affirmance of the Examiner's rejections because we fully considered the
positions of the Examiner and the Appellant with respect to the features that
characterize a full-range power fuse, as these features are recited in the
bodies of claims 1 and 20.
The Appellant contends we misinterpreted "initially will not affect" in
the claim 1 phrases "the short circuit fuse element being specifically
responsive to a high current or short circuit fault in an electrical power
system that initially will not affect the overload fuse element" and "the
overload fuse element being specifically responsive to a low overcurrent or
overload fault current condition in the electrical power system that initially
will not affect the short circuit fuse element," claim 1 ( emphasis added).
Request 18. In our analysis of the rejection of claim 1 as obvious over the
combination of Pimpis and Douglass, we determined that, in the case of fuse
elements connected in series, the above claim language "requires that the
current condition to which one of the short circuit fuse element and the
overload fuse element is responsive initially does not affect the other one of
the two elements," but that "there is no requirement in claim 1 that the other
one of the two elements is ever affected." Dec. 27.
The Appellant argues we overlooked the plain and ordinary meaning
of the term "initially" which "plainly refers to the beginning of the process
of limiting and interrupting the current flow through the parallel connected
11
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
fuse elements as the first element opens." Request 19. The Appellant
contends "[t]he opening of the second fuse element is inevitable ... and is
key to realizing the full-range time-current operation of the power fuse." Id.;
see also id. at 20 ("[T]he different fuse elements in the Appellants' full-
range fuse open sequentially in order to realize the full-range circuit
protection desired.").
The Appellant's argument is not persuasive given the description of
the operation of full-range power fuses in US 5,604,474 (the "'474 patent").
As noted above, the '4 7 4 patent discloses that full range fuses may have
high and low fault current elements connected in series. '474 patent 1:37-38.
The '474 patent discloses that when the current is less than a threshold
current, the low fault assembly melts either alone or in conjunction with the
high fault current element. Id. at 3:49-52. When the current is higher than
the threshold current, the high fault current element melts alone or in
conjunction with the low fault current assembly. Id. at 3:52-54. Although
the preferred embodiment(s) of Appellant's full-range fuse-where the fuse
elements are connected in parallel-may operate in a different manner than
the fuse described in the '4 7 4 patent-where the fuse elements are
connected in series-the claims, as broadly drafted, do not reflect that
difference.
The Appellant also argues that our interpretation of "initially does not
affect" as requiring that only one of the short circuit and overload fuse
elements is affected is irreconcilable with our reversal of the utility and
written description rejections "in which the Examiner asserted a
substantively similar claim interpretation." Request 18-19. We disagree.
12
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
"[I]t has long been the Board's practice to require an applicant to
identify the alleged error in the examiner's rejections." In re Jung, 637 F.3d
1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). The Examiner determined the claimed
invention lacked utility because, upon opening of one fuse element, the
second fuse element connected in parallel, would remain intact permitting
current to flow. Final 7. The Examiner determined the claim 1 phrase
"initially does not affect" lacked written descriptive support because the
original disclosure did not describe a timeline pertaining to the operation of
the short circuit and overload fuse elements. Id. at 8. We were persuaded of
error in the Examiner's rejections based on the Appellant's arguments citing
disclosure in the Specification of an embodiment wherein the short circuit
and overload fuse elements are connected in parallel. See Dec. 13-20. Thus,
in accordance with our practice, we considered the arguments presented by
the Appellant and agreed that those arguments were persuasive of error in
the Examiner's utility and written description rejections. See, e.g., Dec. 18
("The above disclosures support the Appellant's explanation of the operation
of the inventive fuse when the fuse elements/mechanisms are connected in
parallel.").
We next consider the Appellant's argument that we should have
designated the affirmed rejections of claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-10, 12-29, and 39-
46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over the combination of Pimpis and Douglass as
new grounds of rejection because our affirmance was based on
interpretations of claims 1 and 20 that differed from the Examiner's
interpretations. See, e.g., Request 4--5, 18.
"[T]he ultimate criterion of whether a rejection is considered 'new' in
a decision by the board is whether appellants have had fair opportunity to
13
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
react to the thrust of the rejection." In re Kronig, 539 F.2d 1300, 1302
(CCPA 1976). "The Board may not 'rel[y] on new facts and rationales not
previously raised to the applicant by the examiner. Of course, the Board is
not required to 'recite and agree with the examiner's rejection in haec verba'
in order to ensure that the PTO has provided adequate notice." Rambus Inc.
v. Rea, 731 F.3d 1248, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting In reLeithem, 661
F.3d 1316, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). The Appellant does not explain how our
claim interpretation changed the thrust of the prior art rejections. Therefore,
as further discussed below, we are not persuaded that the affirmed rejections
based on Pimpis and Douglass should have been designated new grounds of
rejection.
The Appellant argues that we should have designated the affirmed
rejections as new grounds because "[t]he Examiner and Appellants disagreed
on the meaning of the term 'full-range' in a patentable sense, while the
Board adopts the position that the term 'full-range' is not a patentable
limitation and has ignored its relevance to the affirmed obviousness
rejections." Request 12. In the Response to Argument section of the Answer,
the Examiner responded to the Appellant's argument that Pimp is does not
teach a compact full-range power fuse as follows:
Each of the fuse elements (18) in Pimpis are designed to open
under either, the short circuit current or the overload current,
and therefore, can be interpreted as "a short circuit element and
an overload fuse element". Therefore, the fuse of Pimpis will
open (i.e. will interrupt the fault current and protect the circuit)
upon experiencing either the short circuit overcurrent or
overload overcurrent, and therefore, is a full-range power fuse.
Ans. 13. As to the term "compact," the Examiner stated "it has been held
that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art,
14
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
discovering the optimum or workable ranges/dimensions involves only
routine skill in the art." Ans. 19.
In our Decision, we explicitly stated that "[a]ny additional arguments
made by the Appellant have been fully addressed by the Examiner and are
not persuasive for the reasons stated in the Final Office Action and in the
Answer." Dec. 27 (internal citation omitted). Our affirmance, therefore, was
based on a determination that the Appellant had not identified reversible
error in the fact finding and reasoning relied upon by the Examiner in
support of the rejections, and that our interpretation of the claim preamble as
not limiting merely was an additional reason for finding the Appellant's
arguments unpersuasive. In considering the Request, we again emphasize
that our affirmance is based on the Examiner's fact finding and reasoning.
As discussed above, we determine the preamble term "full-range fuse" is
merely duplicative of language in the body of the claims. As to the preamble
term "compact," we note that the Appellant has not provided persuasive
evidence to refute the Examiner's finding that modifying a fuse resulting
from the combination of Pimpis and Douglass to achieve a more compact
fuse would have been a matter of routine optimization. See Ans. 18-19;
Reply Br. 12; In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1471 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
( explaining that argument by counsel cannot take the place of evidence).
The Appellant also argues that we should have designated the
affirmed rejections as new grounds because our affirmance was based on an
interpretation of the claim 1 language "initially will not affect" as not
requiring that the second fuse element is ever affected. Request 18. The
portion of the Decision referenced by the Appellant addresses an argument
made by the Appellant regarding differences between the claimed invention
15
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
and Douglass. See Dec. 26-27. The Appellant argued that Douglass's
overcurrent trigger mechanism 34 and short circuit interrupting fusible
element 136 "are connected in series," Appeal Br. 27, and that because a
current that causes trigger mechanism 34 to operate causes short circuit
elements 136 to become disconnected, "[a] current that causes the trigger
mechanism 34 to operate ... does initially affect the short circuit elements
136 in the Douglass fuse in a mechanical and electrical sense," id. at 28
(emphasis omitted). In our Decision, we stated that the Appellant's argument
was not consistent with the meaning of "affect" as used in the Specification.
Dec. 26. We also explained that when fuse elements are connected in series,
a current condition that causes failure of one fuse element does not "affect"
the other fuse element as that term is used in the Specification. See id. In
addressing the Appellant's argument concerning differences between
Douglass and claim 1, we concluded that "there is no requirement in claim 1
that the other one of the two elements is ever affected. Accordingly, we are
not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 1."
Dec. 27. To the extent that the Appellant seeks clarification of our
concluding statement, we again emphasize that our affirmance is based on
the Appellant's failure to identify reversible error in the facts and reasons
relied on by the Examiner. See Dec. 2 (referencing the Examiner's reasoning
in the Final Office Action and the Answer). The Examiner's fact finding and
reasoning is summarized on pages 23-24 of our Decision. See, e.g., Dec. 24
("The Examiner finds one of ordinary skill in the art would have replaced
Pimpis' s fusible elements with distinct overload and short circuit fuse
elements, as taught by Douglass .... "); see also Final 24 ("[The Appellant
argues] each of [Douglass's] elements 34 and 136 connects to one, but not
16
Appeal2018-005623
Application 14/321,038
both, of the terminals of the fuse[]. It appears that Applicant misinterprets
the obviousness rejection. The secondary reference (Douglass) has been
used only for the teaching of conventionality of the electrical fuses
employing both: the short circuit fuse element and the overload fuse
element. The primary reference (Pimp is) teaches that the ends of both of the
fuse elements (18) are connected to both terminals (16). ").
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, we have granted the
Appellant's Request for Hearing to the extent that we have reconsidered our
Decision and modified it to delete the characterization of our interpretation
of the claims as encompassing series-connected fuse elements/melting
mechanisms as "in agreement with the Examiner's interpretation." However,
we deny the Appellant's request to revise our claim interpretations or
affirmance of the Examiner's rejections.
DENIED
17