Appeal No. 1999-1660
Application No. 08/444,242
In the present claims, there is a physical connection between
sleeping (the examiner's "event environment") and the timer.
The user must fall asleep to release the switch and, thus,
activate or deactivate the timer. As to a connection or
physical method step between the timer and the sleep time,
each claim recites a method step of the user removing contact
from the switch (and thus activating or deactivating the
timer) "when the user falls asleep." In the face of such a
claim limitation, the examiner's assertion that there is no
physical method step between the timer and the sleep time is
incomprehensible. Last, the terms "awake time" and "sleep
time" do not merely add the user's mental state, as they
describe what the timer is to monitor.
Forbath clearly does not disclose using a timer and
switch in measuring sleep or awake time nor the step of
releasing the switch when a user falls asleep. Nor does
Forbath suggest such use or method step. For a rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner is required to provide a
reason from some teaching, suggestion or implication in the
prior art as a whole, or knowledge generally available to one
of ordinary skill in the art, why one having ordinary skill in
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007