Appeal No. 97-0655
Application 08/294,913
detector located in the receptacle unit (magnet 80) [answer,
page 5]. Regardless of these teachings just noted, the
examiner also maintains that any location of the deadbolt
detecting unit would have been obvious. Appellant
devotes a large portion of the brief to arguing that the
objectives of Pease and appellant’s invention are
substantially different. Although we recognize the different
circumstances for which appellant’s invention and Pease’s
device
were designed, a case for obviousness cannot be overcome by
simply noting the different intended uses for a claimed
invention and the prior art. Appellant does ultimately assert
that the different objectives between the present invention
and the system of Pease result in two significant structural
differences between Pease and the present invention.
First, appellant argues that Pease does not teach that
the deadbolt detecting unit is formed in the deadbolt
receptacle unit as claimed [brief, pages 8-9]. As we noted
above, the examiner has viewed the magnet 80 of Pease as
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007