Appeal No. 97-0655
Application 08/294,913
to an alarm system and, therefore, has a different operation
than the claimed invention.
At the outset, we observe that any differences between
Jamison and the disclosed invention based on purpose and
function are not relevant to this rejection under 35 U.S.C. §
102. The only question we must consider is whether all the
structural details of claim 1 are present in the disclosure of
Jamison. We
note that switch body 28 of Jamison is designed to receive a
deadbolt cylinder therethrough [column 3, lines 50-52].
Therefore, switch body 28 is a deadbolt receptacle unit.
State control means 26 is formed in switch body 28 and detects
the presence of the deadbolt in switch body 28. The signal in
Jamison is disclosed to be either audible or silent (non-
audible) [column 1, line 25]. Thus, we agree with the
examiner that all the details of independent claim 1 are fully
met by the structure disclosed by Jamison. Appellant’s reply
brief does not point to any limitation of claim 1 which is not
met by the disclosure of Jamison. Therefore, we sustain the
-13-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007