Appeal No. 1999-1789
Application No. 08/920,652
pair of switches is [sic, are] for simultaneously
energizing the doorbell chime and the radio transmitter.”
(Answer, page 5).
In response, Appellants assert (Brief, pages 3 and
4; Reply Brief, page 1) that the Examiner has failed to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness since there
is no suggestion in the applied prior art for making the
Examiner’s proposed modification. After careful review
of the applied Levinson reference in light of the
arguments of record, we are in agreement with Appellants’
position as stated in the Briefs.
Initially, we find the Examiner’s reliance on the
functional equivalence of Levinson’s single doorbell
switch and Appellants’ claimed pair of switches to be
unfounded since the Examiner has not established support
for a conclusion of art recognized functional
equivalence. The mere fact that two elements are used
for the same purpose or, in the Examiner’s words (Answer,
page 7) “ . . . provides the same operating functions . .
. ,” does not establish art recognized functional
equivalence. In order to rely on equivalence as a
rationale for supporting an obviousness rejection, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007