Appeal No. 1998-0463
Application No. 08/450,849
that it would be notoriously obvious to automate an on/off
operation, and additionally asserts that “[i]n fact, many
electrical devices present such feature in the electrical
measuring arts.” Appellant challenges the examiner on this
matter and points out (brief, page 4) that neither of the
applied references illustrate or suggest an automatic on/off
feature for an electrical measuring device. Like appellant,
it is apparent to us that the applied evidence is clearly
lacking relative to the expressly set forth limitation in
claim 1 of the automatic on/off feature. Since the evidence
of obviousness before us is clearly deficient, as explained
above, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be
reversed.
Claim 18
We affirm the rejection of claim 18. It follows that the
rejection of dependent claim 19, which stands or falls with
claim 18, is likewise affirmed.
The device of claim 18 comprises, inter alia, first and
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007