Appeal No. 1997-2774
Application No. 08/080,471
remainder of the signal, similar to claims 9, 43, and 44.
Although the examiner combines Tanaka with Yoshida to reject
claims 1, 27, and 28, Yoshida fails to overcome the above-
noted deficiency of Tanaka. Therefore, we must reverse the
rejection of claims 1, 27, and 28.
Regarding claims 3, 29, and 30, the examiner (Final
Rejection, page 8) names as a means for detecting a first
event Tanaka's sensor 4, but admits that Tanaka fails to
disclose the claimed second event. The examiner contends,
however, that
every security system should include an on/off
switch for turning off the system when it is not
needed. Therefore, if the second event (turning the
system off) does not occur, then the security system
would continue to operate. Therefore, it would have
been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify
Tanaka to have an on/off switch to turn off the
system when it is not needed.
The examiner further applies Barber for a teaching of a delay
for sending the alarm code to a remote location.
As argued by appellant (Brief, page 62), if the second
event is assumed to be turning off the system, as proposed by
the examiner, then the "means for identifying a first event
that occurs ... after" the second event occurs would have no
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007