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.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007