Appeal No. 96-1659
Application 08/166,931
plural alarm stations or alarm elements” [answer, page 6].
The examiner has not cited any other evidence in support of
this apparent “official notice” of the conventionality of an
EOL resistor and the manner in which such conventionality
would have rendered the invention of claim 51 obvious.
The examiner is not permitted to dispense with the
showing of evidence in support of the examiner’s assertions of
obviousness. We are not inclined to support contested
findings of fact made by the examiner which are not supported
by any evidence in the record. Therefore, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 51.
With respect to dependent claim 53, appellant argues
that the recitation of a person touching a certain conductor
not being subjected to a hazardous electric shock is not
described or suggested by Ferguson and/or Watkins [brief, page
5]. The examiner responds that Claim 53 “reads on the
conventional ground fault interrupter (GFI) and would have
been obvious to employ a GFI at any location throughout the
house where potential electrical shocks may be present such as
bathrooms” [answer, page 6]. Although the examiner has cited
no evidence in support of his position, we agree with the
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007