Appeal No. 2000-0917 Page 12
Application No. 09/104,763
After the scope and content of the prior art are
determined, the differences between the prior art and the
claims at issue are to be ascertained. Graham v. John Deere
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966).
Based on our analysis and review of Villanueva and claim
1, it is our opinion that the only differences are the
following two limitations: (1) wearing the signal producing
portion on a person; and (2) coupling the signal producing
portion to drive the sound producing portion while the signal
producing portion is being worn on the person.
With regard to these differences, the examiner determined
(final rejection, p. 4) that
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to provide
Villanueva et al. with the signal producing portion worn
on a person of Curley, Jr., because attaching the signal
producing portion directly on [a] person allows the
person to more easily operate the signal producing
portion, wherein the functional buttons or switches are
in [a] better position to be adjusted by the person.
Furthermore, the signal producing portion is less likely
to be stolen if the signal producing portion is worn by
the person instead of being carried on the vehicle when
the vehicle is left unattended.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007