Appeal No. 2004-1197
Application No. 10/041,430
Saitoh. Thus, considering the only prior art before us, the
obviousness rejection on appeal cannot be sustained.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand this application to the examiner for the following
reason.
It does not appear in the record that any known methane
detectors that give off audible warnings have been considered.
The examiner should assess broad claim 10, for example, in
light of known methane detectors.
In summary, this panel of the Board has not sustained the
obviousness rejection on appeal and has remanded the application
to the examiner for the reason given above.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007