Appeal No. 96-1659
Application 08/166,931
obviousness. If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to
the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis
of the evidence as a whole. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783
F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir.
1984); and
In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA
1976).
1. The rejection of claims 35-41, 44-
46 and 49-55 on Ferguson in view of
Watkins.
With respect to independent claim 35, the examiner has
cited Ferguson for its teaching of a plurality of
interconnected remote smoke alarms. Watkins is cited to
ostensibly show that plural remote alarm stations can be
powered by either conventional A.C. power lines or by
conventional telephone lines [answer, page 4]. Appellant’s
only argument is that the recitation in claim 35 that the
master smoke alarm has a battery whereas the slave smoke
alarms do not have a battery is not suggested by either
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007