Appeal No. 1998-2864
Application No. 08/338,235
that such an alternative alarm means in the instant invention
would have been obvious within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. 103.
We note, in passing, that in the response section of the
principal answer, at page 15, the examiner attempts to cite U.S.
Patents to Freedman and Freeman as evidence of the use of other
alarm means. While these references may, indeed, provide for
such alarm means, Freedman and/or Freeman form no part of the
statement of the rejection and we will not consider them. In re
Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970).
In any event, we do not consider these references necessary as,
in our view, the rejection of claims 2, 4, 8 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. 103 is proper without them.
With regard to claim 14, this claim adds the limitation to
claim 7 of providing, by the control console, a display of
measurement data, whereas, as argued by appellant, Kobayashi
displays measurement data only by display 31 in the portable
diagnosis device 25. It is appellant’s position that the lamps
23a, 23b merely indicate an abnormality in the electronic control
system 2 and do not display measurement data. This
distinguishing feature is said to enable a person at the control
console to observe the requested measurement data.
-11–
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007