Appeal No. 97-0655
Application 08/294,913
simply failed to address the specific limitations of the
invention as set forth in independent claim 1. Therefore, we
do not sustain this rejection of claims 1 and 4.
With respect to independent claim 13, this claim is
similar to independent claim 1 except that it recites a
plurality of deadbolt receiving units and an RF transmitter
for sending sensed deadbolt signals to a single indicator.
The examiner essentially applies Pease in the same manner as
considered above and asserts that plural devices and
wireless transmission would have been obvious to the artisan
[answer, page 8].
Pease fails to teach or suggest the invention of claim
13 for the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim
1. Additionally, there would be no basis to add plural
devices or wireless transmission to the Pease device. The
Pease device is designed to alert an intruder at the location
of the lock that
the alarm system is present. A plurality of such devices and
a central indicator would defeat the very purpose for which
Pease was designed. Therefore, we do not sustain this
rejection of claims 13-17.
-10-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007