Appeal No. 1999-0636 Page 10
Application No. 08/828,375
solves any stated problem. Accordingly, we agree with the
examiner that the particular height of the gate would have
been an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of
the art.6
The examiner contends that it would have been obvious to
incorporate an audible alarm on the Martinek gate to detect
unauthorized movement of the gate, in view of the teaching by
La Mell to provide an alarm on a barrier (answer, page 3).
The appellant argues on pages 15 through 17 of the brief that
the combined teachings of Martinek and La Mell would not have
suggested provision of an alarm on the Martinek gate because
(1) Martinek is designed to prevent movement and block passage
and thus does not need an alarm and (2) the alarm of La Mell
is adapted (by the incorporation of a delay circuit) for use
with freely movable barrier members and thus would not have
suggested provision of an alarm on the rigid gate assembly of
Martinek.
The appellant's first argument is not well taken. While
we appreciate that the Martinek gate is provided with a wide
6See In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007