Appeal No. 97-0655
Application 08/294,913
the presence of the deadbolt cylinder in the deadbolt
receiving slot as recited in claim 1. The examiner has also
essentially concluded that the location of the detecting unit
is an obvious design choice and that there is no disclosed
advantage to the placement within the receptacle unit as
claimed. Appellant responds that he has disclosed the
benefits of placing the detecting unit within the deadbolt
receptacle unit, and the examiner has pointed to no teaching
which suggests this placement [reply brief, pages 2-3].
We agree with appellant. The examiner has dismissed a
key feature of appellant’s claimed invention as being obvious
even though there is not the slightest hint in the applied
prior art that the claimed feature would have been desirable
or advantageous. We are not inclined to permit the examiner
to
dispense with the requirement that the examiner present
evidence to support conclusions of obviousness. It appears to
us that the examiner has decided that the invention is so
simple that any related prior art teaching would be sufficient
to support a holding of obviousness. Although we agree that
the claimed invention is relatively simple, the examiner has
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007