Appeal No. 96-3090 Page 9
Application 08/287,409
be repetitive and periodic (corresponding to sunrise and
sunset).
Schneidinger teaches all of the limitations of claim 50
so we affirm the rejection of claim 50 under section 102 over
Schneidinger. We also affirm the rejection of all remaining
claims grouped with claim 50, i.e., claims 52, 54, 55, 57-61,
and 63-65.
OBVIOUSNESS - SCHNEIDINGER
Appellant relies on his arguments regarding anticipation
to address the rejections under section 103. (Paper 31
(Brief) at 9.) Since we affirm the anticipation rejection
based on Schneidinger, we also affirm the related obviousness
rejections of remaining claims 51, 53, 56, and 62.
ANTICIPATION - PFEIFFER
Appellant groups together all of the claims rejected
under section 102 over Pfeiffer. (Paper 31 (Brief) at 3.) We
choose claim 50 as the broadest of the remaining claims in
this group.
Pfeiffer teaches an arrangement comprising a wall
switch 10 (2:47-53; Fig. 1) with a conventional face plate 50
(3:27-31). The operation of the programmed actuator is
described in patent application 06/408,330, which issued as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007