Appeal No. 2001-2019
Application No. 08/996,567 Page 17
supra, with respect to Berry, III and Markl and affirm the
rejection of claims 2 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
We turn next to the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Berry, III in view of Markl and
Tigwell. Appellants (brief, page 7) acknowledge that Tigwell
teaches the utilization of a synchronizing signal to
simultaneously flash plural lights, but assert that "there is
still no teaching or suggestion in any of the cited reference to
combine them in a way such that the voltage is changed on the
power lines to control the timing of the visual and audible
alarms." We observe that appellants' argument is directed to the
limitations of claim 1, from which claim 3 depends. In view of
our findings, supra, with respect to Berry, III, Markl, and the
teachings of Tigwell of providing a synchronizing signal to
synchronize a plurality of lanterns (col. 1, line 67 through col.
2, line 2 and col. 2, lines 3-7), we are not convinced of any
error on the part of the examiner. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007