Appeal No. 96-2518
Application No. 08/040,053
Therefore, it is clear that appellant had disclosed a coarse
display and then a display in a more detailed manner.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of the
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We now turn to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 based
on prior art.
We will sustain these rejections because, in our view,
the examiner has established a case of prima facie obviousness
and
appellant has not successfully rebutted it. Also, appellant
has not argued any specific claim apart from any other so all
claims will stand or fall together.
More specifically, with regard to independent claim 1 and
the application of Walter thereto, Walter discloses the
monitoring of an automation system, i.e., a fire alarm system,
wherein locations of activated sensors are monitored. The
layout of the building is known and stored, which allows
“accessing important planning and design data of the
automation system” wherein information is available on all
possible sensor locations. The enablement of the positions of
the sensors to be superposed on the visual displays generated
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007