Appeal No. 2000-1663
Application No. 08/691,663
The Simms fob does not include a large number of buttons. As
such, in our view, the prior art does not provide the necessary
motivation for a a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the teachings of the prior art so that a timer is incorporated to
determine whether Simms’ panic button is actuated for a
predetermined period of time. Therefore, we will not sustain the
rejection of claims 18 through 20.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 11
through 16 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Tatematsu in view of Simms and Tang.
It is the examiner’s view that Tatematsu in view of Simms
suggests the invention as claimed except that Tatematsu and Simms
do not teach or suggest a moveable cover with a first position
which prevents the buttons from being pressed and a second
position where the cover is clear of the buttons. The examiner
relies on Tang for suggesting a slidable door.
We will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to
claim 5, because claim 5 is dependent on claim 1 and Tang does
not cure the deficiencies noted above for the combination of
Tatematsu and Simms.
In regard to claim 11, we agree with the appellants that
Tang does not teach or suggest a clear cover. Rather, the Tang
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007