Appeal No. 96-1659
Application 08/166,931
batteries as was present in claim 35. Claim 50 recites a
voltage conditioning sub-system connected to the building
electrical terminals. In our view, the PWM circuit of Watkins
does constitute a voltage conditioning sub-system within the
broad meaning of that term. Therefore, the examiner has
properly established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to independent claim 50. As noted above, an applicant
is required to provide a persuasive response to a properly
made prima facie case of obviousness. Since appellant has
provided no response to the rejection of claim 50, we sustain
the rejection of claim 50 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Claims 52
and 54 depend from claim 50 and have also not been argued by
appellant in the brief. Therefore, these claims fall with
claim 50 from which they depend.
With respect to dependent claim 51, appellant argues
that the recitation of a resistor drawing more current during
periods when no alarm is being emitted than do all the smoke
alarms in combination is not described or suggested by
Ferguson and/or Watkins [brief, page 5]. The examiner
responds that claim 51 “reads on a conventional end of line
resistor (EOL) employed in conventional loop monitoring of
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007