Patents

Decision Information

Decision Content

                    COMMISSIONER'S DECISION

 

Claim Terminology: Circuit Breaker

 

Terminology used in three claims was inconsistent with the terms used in the

disclosure. The Agent submitted new claims.

 

Final Action: Affirmed

 

                                *************

 

Patent application 205796 (Class 306-228), was filed on November 16,

1976, for an invention entitled "Compressed-Gas Insulated Circuit Breaker

Operating Mechanism." The inventors are Willie B. Freeman et al, assign-

ors to Westinghouse Electric Corporation. The Examiner in charge of the

application took a Final Action on June 28, 1979, refusing to allow it to

proceed to patent.

 

This application is directed to circuit breakers in which compressed gas

is used to position the movable contact within the circuit breaker.

 

In the Final Action the Examiner rejected claims 4, 5 and 8 because they

contain certain terms which were not consistent with the terminology of the

disclosure, thereby rendering these claims indefinite. The remaining claims

were indicated as allowable.

 

In response to the Final Action the applicant altered some of the terms used

in the rejected claims in an effort to overcome the objections made in that

action. Since the amendments did not remove all the ambiguities in the claims

the application was forwarded to the Patent Appeal Board.

 

After considering the amended claims we contacted Mr. Oldham by telephone and

explained           the disclosure and claims which were not consistent with

each other. Since then we have received two letters of amendment dated May 28,

1980, and June 23, 1980, and are now satisfied that terminology found through-

out the application meets the requirements of Section 36 of the Patent Act.

 

Therefore we recommend to the Commissioner of Patents that the amendments

to disclosure and claims are acceptable and the rejection to claims 4, 5

and 8 be withdrawn.

 

G.A. Asher                                    S.D. Kot

Chairman                                      Member

Patent Appeal Board, Canada

 

I concur with the reasoning and findings of the Patent Appeal Board. According-

1y I accept the amendments to claims 4, 5 and 8. The application is returned

to the Examiner to resume prosecution in accordance with this decision.

 

J.H.A. Gariepy

Commissioner of Patents

 

Dated at Hull, Quebec

this 9th. day of July, 1980

 

Agent for Applicant

 

McConnell & Fox

Box 510

Hamilton, Ont.

 You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.