S&C Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 1, 2021

2020006495 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/605,356 05/25/2017 Richard G. SMITH SC-5483 8219
24275 7590 09/01/2021
S & C Electric Company
Anthony G. Sitko
6601 N. Ridge Blvd.
Chicago, IL 60626-3904
EXAMINER
SUL, STEPHEN SANGJIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2835
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/01/2021 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):
ASitko@sandc.com
satoko.nakao@sandc.com
tony@anthonysitko.net
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RICHARD G. SMITH and GLENN R. BORCHARDT

Appeal 2020-006495
Application 15/605,356
Technology Center 2800
____________

Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
DONNA M. PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judges.

PRAISS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 8, 10–12, and 18. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed May 25, 2017
(“Spec.”), the Final Office Action dated Feb. 13, 2020 (“Final Act.”), the
Appeal Brief filed June 15, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer
dated Sept. 8, 2020 (“Ans.”), and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 15, 2020
(“Reply Br.”).
2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies S&C Electric Company as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006495
Application 15/605,356

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The subject matter on appeal relates to interrupting equipment in
power distribution systems, specifically fuse mountings used in connection
with such systems. Spec. ¶ 2. According to the Specification, during an
overload event, a fusible element within a fuse tube separates and is
rotationally released with respect to a hinge pivot providing a visual cue that
a power fuse assembly has experienced a fault condition. Id. ¶ 20.
Appellant’s hinge assembly 600 is shown in Figure 6 below. Id. ¶ 32.

Figure 6 above depicts upper portion 604 and lower portion 606 of
hinge assembly 600 wherein diverter structure 612 in lower portion 606
diverts the flow of exhaust as it moves from upper portion 604 to opening
610. Id. ¶ 32. The Specification describes a pressure gradient being produced
by redirecting exhaust gases such that each division of flow has a high and
low pressure side prior to rejoining at the final exhaust outlet. Id. ¶ 37.
Appeal 2020-006495
Application 15/605,356

3
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced from the Claims Appendix to
the Appeal Brief (disputed limitation italicized).
1. A power fuse assembly comprising:
a fuse mounting;
a fuse unit configured to carry current from a line
connection to a load connection;
a hinge assembly removably coupling the fuse unit to the
fuse mounting to allow rotation of the fuse unit relative to the
fuse mounting, the hinge assembly including:
an inlet configured to accept incoming gases produced by
the fuse unit in response to an overload event, the inlet having a
first orientation;
an outlet in fluid communication with the inlet, the outlet
having a second orientation that is not equal to the first
orientation; and
a diverter component disposed within the hinge assembly
between the inlet and the outlet, the diverter component having
a[n] airfoil configuration configured to guide the flow of the
gases from the inlet in the first orientation to the outlet in the
second orientation.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims Appendix). Claims 10 and 18 are also
independent and require a “curved diverter vane” within a curved
inner chamber (claim 10) or conduit (claim 18) that is “configured as
an airfoil.” Id. at 17, 18.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
(“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify
Appeal 2020-006495
Application 15/605,356

4
the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections.”)). After considering the
argued claims and Appellant’s arguments, we are persuaded of reversible
error in the appealed rejections.
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 8, 10–12, and 18 as follows for the
reasons provided in the Final Office Action.3 Final Act. 4–18.
Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
1–3, 8, 10–12, 18 103 Scherer4, Morgan5
1–3, 8, 10–12, 18 103 Scherer, Morgan, Nichols6
We need only address claim 1 because independent claims 10 and 18
include similar diverter component limitations.
Obviousness of Claim 1 over Scherer and Morgan
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as obvious
over Scherer and Morgan, inter alia, because Scherer does not disclose a
diverter or any discussion as to how or in what direction exhaust gases are
emitted or guided and Morgan discloses flat, planar plates for cooling gas as
it flows around the plates and does not disclose a curved configuration let
alone an airfoil configuration. Appeal Br. 9–11. Appellant asserts that
“neither Scherer nor Morgan say anything about any airfoil being used for

3 The Examiner indicates that Appellant’s amendments to the claims to
address the Examiner’s objections will be entered if prosecution continues.
Ans. 3. Appellant’s amendments insert into claims 8, 10, and 18 “airfoil
configuration,” as recited in claim 1. Response After Final Action filed Apr.
13, 2020, 2–4.
4 US 5,773,777, issued June 30, 1998 (“Scherer”).
5 US 4,857,879, issued Aug. 15, 1989 (Morgan”).
6 US 2014/0151010 A1, published June 5, 2014 (“Nichols”).
Appeal 2020-006495
Application 15/605,356

5
any purpose” thus the rejection is based on impermissible hindsight. Id. at
12.
We find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error. During
examination, the Examiner bears the initial burden of establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992). To establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, all the
claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. See In re
Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 985 (CCPA 1974). “[R]ejections on obviousness
grounds cannot be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there
must be some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006)).
The Examiner acknowledges that Scherer does not disclose a diverter
component. Ans. 5. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious to
modify Scherer to include a diverter component within the hinge assembly
as taught by Morgan to guide exhausted gases and increase the flow speed at
which gasses are expelled from the outlet. Id. at 6. Regarding Morgan, the
Examiner finds Morgan’s exhausted gas from fuse holder 1 falls into trap 18
which has a plurality of plates that guide the exhausted gas in addition to
cooling it. Id. at 5–6 (citing Morgan 1:48–56, 1:60–61). Morgan’s Figure 7
below shows the relationship between fuse holder 1 and trap 18.
Appeal 2020-006495
Application 15/605,356

6

Figure 7 above depicts the fuse blown position. Morgan 2:60–61. The
Examiner directs us to Morgan’s Figure 3 as support for the Examiner’s
finding that Morgan’s plates in trap 18 function to direct/guide the exhausted
gas from the inlet to the outlet as the trap moves. Id. at 6. Morgan’s Figure 3
is shown below:
Appeal 2020-006495
Application 15/605,356

7

Figure 3 above is an exploded perspective view of ejects trap 18 and
tail terminal 14 arrangement. Morgan 2:50–52. The Examiner identifies the
top of trap 18 as the inlet and the bottom of trap 18 as the outlet in an
annotated version of Morgan’s Figure 3. Final Act. 6. Regarding the airfoil
shape recited in claim 1, the Examiner determines change of shape would
have been obvious because Appellant’s Specification indicates that shape is
not critical. Ans. 7 (citing Spec. ¶ 36).
The Examiner’s analysis does not adequately explain why a person
having ordinary skill in the art would have selected Morgan’s trap 18 to be
disposed within Scherer’s hinge assembly. It is not sufficient for an
obviousness analysis to show that each of the elements of claim 1 was
independently known in the prior art, regardless of the shape of Morgan’s
cooling plates. KSR, 550 US at 418. Claim 1 requires the hinge assembly to
Appeal 2020-006495
Application 15/605,356

8
have an inlet and an outlet with a diverter component disposed between the
hinge assembly’s inlet and outlet. The Examiner has identified Morgan’s
trap as having an inlet and an outlet, but does not adequately explain why
Morgan’s trap would have been used to modify Scherer’s hinge assembly
between an inlet and outlet of Scherer’s hinge assembly. The Examiner’s
finding (Final Act. 6) that Morgan’s trap would increase the flow speed at
which the gasses are expelled is not supported by the cited prior art. In the
absence of a reason to modify Scherer’s hinge assembly by disposing
Morgan’s trap structure between a hinge assembly inlet and an outlet, the
combination of prior art references fails to teach or suggest the claimed
hinge assembly having the structure of an inlet and an outlet with a diverter
components disposed between the inlet and outlet.
For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 10 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the cited prior
art references fail to teach or suggest the diverter component required by
each of the independent claims as discussed above in connection with claim
1. We reverse the rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 11, and 12 based on
their dependency from claim 1 or 10.

Obviousness of Claim 1 over Scherer, Morgan, and Nichols
The Examiner alternatively finds Nichols discloses an airfoil for
increasing fluid velocity and determines a person having ordinary skill in the
art would have modified the diverter element to have an airfoil shape to
increase the velocity at which gases are expelled from a power fuse
assembly. Final Act. 7.
Appeal 2020-006495
Application 15/605,356

9
Because the Examiner relies upon Nichols for disclosing the specific
shape of an airfoil as required by claim 1 and not the structure of a diverter
component disposed between the inlet and outlet of a hinge assembly as
required by claim 1, Nichols fails to cure the deficiencies discussed above in
connection with the rejection of claim 1 over Scherer and Morgan.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over Scherer, Morgan, and Nichols for the same reasons
discussed above in connection with the rejection over Scherer and Morgan
alone.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 10
and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the cited prior art references fail to
teach or suggest the diverter component required by each of the independent
claims as discussed above in connection with claim 1. We reverse the
rejection of dependent claims 2, 3, 8, 11, and 12 based on their dependency
from claim 1 or 10.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are reversed.

Appeal 2020-006495
Application 15/605,356

10
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 8, 10–
12, 18 103
Scherer, Morgan 1–3, 8, 10–
12, 18

1–3, 8, 10–
12, 18 103
Scherer, Morgan,
Nichols
1–3, 8, 10–
12, 18

Overall
Outcome
1–3, 8, 10–
12, 18

REVERSED