Appeal No. 96-0935 Application 08/157,737 modification is found in the appellants' admission that such EMI is undesirable, the secondary references in which such EMI detected by a second system is signaled to another monitoring system to avoid improper response by that other system, as well as the self-evident advantages of providing a means for offsetting the presence of an undesirable signal, which would have been known to the artisan. With regard to step 10(e), we point out that "second alarm" is a very broad phrase, which need not be audible or even different from the first alarm, as the appellants' arguments seem to suggest. Any second detecting system necessarily would provide a second alarm of some fashion in order to accomplish its mission. To the extent that this claim is interpreted to require that the second signal be different than that of the first alarm, it is our opinion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to provide a differing characteristic, so that one alarm could be discerned from the other, for the self-evident advantages thereof. We therefore conclude that the combined teachings of the three references establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claim 10, and we will sustain the rejection. 8Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007