Ex parte Richards

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 26, 2000

08695899 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 26, 2000)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication in a law journal and is not
binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 16
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________
Ex parte CLYDE N. RICHARDS
_____________
Appeal No. 1998-1981
Application No. 08/695,899
______________
HEARD: November 14, 2000
_______________
Before BARRETT, FLEMING, and BARRY, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 1 through 16, all the claims pending in the present
application.
The invention relates to high voltage insulators. In
Appeal No. 1998-1981
Application No. 08/695,899
2
particular, the invention relates to high voltage insulators
that are designed to reduce or eliminate corrosion and erosion
effects associated with current leakage and corona discharge
effects.
Independent claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. Insulator terminator device, for use with a high voltage
power line insulator having a plurality of rainsheds
projecting from the sides thereof and having a lower end
fitting below the lowermost of said rain sheds, said insulator
terminator device comprising:
(a) volume current conveyance means, connected to a
portion of said insulator between said lowermost rain shed and
said lower end fitting, for conveying a volume current from
said portion of said insulator, through said volume current
conveyance means, and for avoiding high electric field
strengths in said means and on said portion of said insulator;
and
(b) surface current conduction and strength means,
surrounding and connected to a portion of said volume current
conveyance means, and connected to said lower end fitting, for
conveying a surface current through said surface current
conveyance means from said volume current conveyance means to
said lower end fitting, and for avoiding high electric field
strengths in the vicinity of said surface current conduction
and strength means; and for providing mechanical strength for
support of said volume current conveyance means.
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Ette 909,569 Jan. 12,
1909
Hawley 2,023,808 Dec. 10, 1935
Hirayama 3,791,859 Feb. 12, 1974
Tsuzuki et al. (Tsuzuki) 3,798,351 Mar. 19, 1974
Appeal No. 1998-1981
Application No. 08/695,899
Appellant filed an appeal brief on February 2, 1998. 1
Appellant filed a reply brief on March 24, 1998. On April 14,
1998, the Examiner mailed an office communication stating that
the reply brief has been entered and considered, but no
3
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Tsuzuki.
Claims 1 through 3, 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki in view of Hawley.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tsuzuki, Hawley and Ette.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tsuzuki, Hawley and Hirayama.
Claims 11, 15 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Tsuzuki.
Claims 12 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Tsuzuki and Ette.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tsuzuki and Hirayama.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs and answer for the1
Appeal No. 1998-1981
Application No. 08/695,899
further response by the Examiner is deemed necessary.
4
respective details thereof.
OPINION
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 102, nor will we sustain the rejection of
claims 1 through 8 and 11 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
It is axiomatic that anticipation of a claim under § 102
can be found only if the prior art reference discloses every
element of the claim. See In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326,
231 USPQ 136, 138 (Fed. Cir. 1986) and Lindemann
Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d
1452, 1458, 221 USPQ 481, 485 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
On pages 23 and 24 of the brief, Appellant argues that
Tsuzuki fails to teach a volume current conveyance means and a
surface current conduction and strength means as recited in
Appellant's claim 9. In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner
states that Tsuzuki discloses a volume current conveyance
means, coating (4), and a surface current conduction and
strength means layer (9).
Appeal No. 1998-1981
Application No. 08/695,899
5
We note that Appellant's claim 9 recites "[a] volume
current conveyance means . . . for conveying a volume current
from said portion of said insulator, through said volume
current conveyance means, and for avoiding high electric field
strengths in said means and on said portion of said
insulator." We note that Appellant's Fig. 1 shows the volume
current conveyance means as Element 12. See pages 4 and 5 of
Appellant's specification.
We note that in column 2, lines 63 and 64, Tsuzuki
teaches that Element 4 is a semi-conducting glaze.
Furthermore, we note in column 3, lines 8 through 11, that
Tsuzuki teaches that the Figure shows the thickness of the
semi-conducting glaze 4 on an enlarged scale. Thus, the semi-
conducting glaze 4 shown in the Figure has a very small
thickness. From this disclosure and from the Figure, we fail
to find that this semi-conducting glaze 4 which has a very
thin thickness meets the Appellant's claimed volume current
conveyance means because the semi-conducting
glaze 4 is unable to convey a volume current from the said
insulator. Furthermore, the semi-conducting glaze 4 is not
Appeal No. 1998-1981
Application No. 08/695,899
6
able to avoid high electric field strengths in the semi-
conducting glaze on said portion of said insulator.
Appellant's claim 9 further recites "[a] surface current
conduction and strength means . . . for providing mechanical
strength for support of said volume current conveyance means."
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner states that Tsuzuki
teaches a surface current conduction and strength means as
shown as Element 9 in the Tsuzuki Figure.
Turning to Tsuzuki, we note that in column 3, lines 8
through 11, Tsuzuki teaches that the thickness of the alloy
portion 9 is shown on an enlarged scale in the Figure.
Furthermore, Tsuzuki teaches in column 3, lines 12 through 16
that the low melting point alloy portion 9 may be formed by
melt- spray or metallized on the semi-conducting glaze 4.
Thus, Tsuzuki teaches that Element 9 is a very thin foil
applied over the semi-conducting glaze 4. Therefore, we fail
to find that the Element 9 provides any mechanical strength
for support of the volume current conveyance means.
Therefore, we fail to find that Tsuzuki teaches all of
the elements as recited in Appellant's claim 9. Therefore, we
Appeal No. 1998-1981
Application No. 08/695,899
7
will not sustain the rejection of claim 9 or dependent claim
10 for the reasons set forth above.
In regard to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case. It is
the burden of the Examiner to establish why one having
ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the claimed
invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by implications contained in such teachings or
suggestions. In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6
(Fed. Cir. 1983). "Additionally, when determining
obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
whole; there is no legally recognizable 'heart' of the
invention." Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int'l, Inc.,
73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995),
cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996), citing W. L. Gore & Assoc.,
Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548,
220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984).
We note that the Examiner for these rejections, is
relying on Tsuzuki in the same matter as above in that Tsuzuki
Appeal No. 1998-1981
Application No. 08/695,899
8
teaches a volume current conveyance means as shown as Element
4 and a surface current conduction and strength means shown as
Element 9. For the same reasons as we set forth above, we
will not sustain the rejections of claims 1 through 8, and 11
through 16.
In view of the foregoing, we have not sustained the
rejection of claims 9 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. In
addition, we have not sustained the rejection of claims 1
through 8 and 11 through 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal No. 1998-1981
Application No. 08/695,899
9
Accordingly, the examiner's decision is reversed.
REVERSED
LEE E. BARRETT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
LANCE LEONARD BARRY )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF:lmb
ROBERT W. HARRIS
5906 PAINTED PONY DR., N.W.
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 87120