COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
Indefinite Claiming: The Board suggested terminology to define the invention
which was accepted by Applicant. Rejection affirmed, amendment accepted.
********
This decision deals with Applicant's request for review by the Commissioner
of Patents of the Examiner's Final Action on application 275,017 (Class 306-
327), filed on March 29, 1977, by Westinghouse Electric, entitled "Vacuum
Circuit Breaker Apparatus Having Elongated Support Members." The inventors
are Fred Bould and Peter M. Kowalik. The Examiner in charge issued a Final
Action on July 30, 1980, refusing the application.
The application relates to circuit breaker apparatus for opening and closing
separable electrical main contacts. It includes parallel spaced-apart
supports 212a, 212b, which support an operating mechanism at one end. Bell
crank means, e.g. 330b, are mounted along the supports and are connected to
actuating linkage 306 driven by the operating mechanism. When the bell crank
moves, insulating rod 350b, which is disposed vertically between the supports
and is connected to the bell crank means, moves to close the circuit breaker
contacts of pole pieces 322b. Figure 11 below shows the structure of the
circuit breaker.
<IMG>
In the Final Action the Examiner refused claim 1 as being indefinite, incom-
plete, and contrary to Section 36(2) of the Patent Act. No prior art was
applied.
In the Final Action the Examiner stated, in part:
The refusal of claim 1 is maintained because
a) It is indefinite and incomplete, and therefore contrary to
Section 36(2) of the Patent Act, for failing to recite suffic-
ient elements for proper operation of the invention, i.e. it
does not define the location and the structural relationship of
the "supports" with other parts of the circuit breaker.
b) The statement contained in paragraph (c), contrary to Rule 25
of the Patent Rules, is supported neither by the descriptive
part of the disclosure nor by the drawings. The claim states clearly
that the "connecting rod" is "supported by said supports at one
end", i.e. that the connecting rod is resting directly on the
supports. Fig. 4, however, shows an operating rod (such as 110b)
pivotally supported at one end between the two levers 16b by
means of pin 112. Levers 16b are in turn fixed to the shaft 14
rotatably mounted in bearings 24 located in supports 12, and
the disclosure states on page 6, lines 1-9, that owing to the
proximity of the levers 16b to the shaft bearing 24, a substantial
deflection of the shaft 14 is prevented.
The applicant argues that since the connecting rod 110b is supported
by the levers 16b, which are supported by the shaft 14, which in turn
is supported by the supports 12, it could be said that the connection
rod itself is supported by the supports 12. This argument is purely an
academic one, and following it to its logical conclusion, it may be
said that since the supports 12 are ultimately supported by the ground,
the connecting rod also is supported by the ground which obviously
is absurd. It is also obvious that an arrangement with the connecting
rod 110b having one end directly supported or connected to the
supports 12 would be inoperable since the supports are stationary and
the connecting rod must be able to move in order to operate the
contacts. Claim 2 is also rejected because the statement "said spaced
supports comprise two members of the same general size and shape" renders
it indefinite and inexplicit, since neither the shape nor the size is
defined.
The Applicant did not agree with the Examiner, and argued (in part):
. . .
While the applicant does not concur with the Examiner's contention
that objects supported on a second object which in turn is support-
ed on a third object are not for all intents and purposes supported
by said third object, nevertheless the claim has been amended to
clarify the relationship between the operating means arid the
contact means to make it clear that the essence of the invention
lies in the common support means for both of these devices.
. . .
The issue before the Board is whether or not newly proposed claim 1 properly
defines the scope of monopoly of the invention described in the disclosure
and illustrated in the drawings.
The Board thoroughly reviewed the application, and concluded that some amend-
ments to new claim 1 were still necessary to define the invention in terms
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Section 36(2) of the Patent Act.
We telephoned the Agent, Mr. R. Fox and discussed certain amendments with him.
After due consideration, Mr. Fox submitted a further amendment substituting
claim 1 for that of record. Amended claim 1 reads:
A circuit interrupter with separable main contacts comprising:
a) a pair of elongated, generally parallel, one piece spaced
supports;
b) operating mechanism means mounted on said supports at one
end thereof;
c) a separable main contacts connecting rod of insulating mater-
ial vertically disposed along and between said supports;
d) bell crank means pivotally mounted on the supports, one end
of said rod engaging the separable main contacts, the other
end of said rod pivotally connected to said bell crank;
e) an actuating linkage means interconnecting said operating
mechanism means and said bell crank, the movement of said connect-
ing rod and the consequent opening or closing of said contacts
being actuated through said bell crank by the movement of said
linkage means in response to appropriate operations in said oper-
ating mechanism means.
On the record before us it is our view that the amended claim now presents
a definite and complete definition of the structure disclosed. In particular,
by pivotally positioning the bell crank means on the spaced support means,
and by attaching the actuating linkage means and the main contacts connect-
ing rod at their respective points to the bell crank means, an operable arrangement
is claimed. Therefore, the objections made in the Final Action have been
overcome, and no further discussion appears to be necessary.
We recommend that amended claim 1 be accepted.
G.A. Asher M.G. Brown
Chairman Member
Patent Appeal Board, Canada
I concur with the reasoning and findings of the Patent Appeal Board. Accord-
ingly, I direct that the prosecution proceed on the basis of the amended
claims.
J.H.A. Gari‚py
Commissioner of Patents
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 16th. day of December, 1981
Agent for Applicant
McConnell & Fox
Box 510
Hamilton, Ont.
L8N 3K2