Appeal No. 2001-2019
Application No. 08/996,567 Page 16
synchronization of same. We note that Markl was not cited or
relied upon by the examiner for a disclosure or suggestion of an
audible alarm, as this feature is found in Berry, III.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness of claim 1 that not
been successfully rebutted by appellants. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Turning to independent claim 5, we observe that claim 5 does
not require synchronization. We affirm the rejection of claim 5
based upon our findings, supra, with respect to Berry, III and
Markl.
Turning to independent claim 11, we observe that claim 11
neither requires synchronization nor timing control. We affirm
the rejection of claim 5 based upon our findings, supra, with
respect to Berry, III and Markl. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 1, 5, 6, 11, and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to dependent claims 2 and 7. Appellants assert
that claims 2 and 7 are allowable due to their dependency upon
claims 1 and 5. The examiner provides reasons (answer, page 7)
as to why claims 2 and 7 are considered to be unobvious over the
prior art. In view of appellants lack of assertion of error on
the part of the examiner, we make reference to our findings,
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007