Appeal No. 96-3090 Page 10
Application 08/287,409
United States Patent 4,521,843. (2:53-56.) The examiner
identifies switch 52 as protruding through the face plate.
(Paper 32 at 11.) While this is true, switch 52 does not
reciprocate "in accordance with a pre-established program" as
claim 50 requires. The only other independent claim,
claim 60, has a corresponding limitation.
Pfeiffer does not teach all of the limitations of
claim 50 so we reverse the rejection of claim 50 under
section 102 over Pfeiffer. We also reverse this rejection for
all remaining claims grouped with claim 50, i.e., claims 51,
52, 54, 55, and 57-65.
OBVIOUSNESS - PFEIFFER
Claim 53 is the only remaining claim rejected over the5
combination of Pfeiffer and either Angott or Augustyniak. It
depends from claim 50 and requires, in addition, an electric
motor included with the programmable actuator.
Angott teaches an external thermostat timer for use with
an existing wall-mounted thermostat. He does not teach a
switch lever that protrudes through a conventional face plate
and that reciprocates according to a pre-determined pattern.
5 The obviousness rejection of claim 47 has been
reversed pro forma. See page 5.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007