Appeal No. 96-2444
Application 08/360,194
mode whenever the cover is closed and the system does not
measure how long the case has been closed. The examiner
provides no factual support for switching based on the time
the button is depressed. It appears that the examiner is
trying to make up a plausible explanation for doing what
appellants have done without providing any factual evidence.
The next closest statement we find on the examiner's
treatment of the difference about switching based on the time
the switch is depressed is the following (Paper No. 7,
page 3):
Moreover, different button actuations would have been
inherently required such the [sic] system knew if the
human was the one pushing the button or if the cover had
been closed.
Appellants respond (Br11):
It is unclear what the Examiner means by "different
button actuations" or how such actuations would be
"inherently required." . . . The Examiner further does
not even discuss how the system would distinguish the
user pressing the button versus case closure pressing the
button. It is clear that time-dependency for making such
distinction is not disclosed, taught, or even suggested
in Carter or the admitted prior art.
The examiner glosses over the difference about switching
based on the time the switch is depressed. We agree with the
examiner that IF it would have been obvious to use a single
- 12 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007