Appeal No. 2001-2019
Application No. 08/996,567 Page 18
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Berry, III, Markl, Tigwell and
Kollin. Appellants (brief, page 7) do not dispute the findings
of the examiner (answer, page 5) with respect to Kollin, but
rather argues to the effect that Kollin does not make up for the
deficiencies of Berry, III, Markl, and Tigwell. In view of our
findings, supra, with respect to Berry, III and Tigwell, and the
reasons in support of the rejection found on pages 5 and 6 of the
answer, we are not convinced of any error on the part of the
examiner and agree with the examiner that the teachings of Berry,
III, Markl, Tigwell and Kollin suggest the language of claim 4.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 8-10 and 13 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Berry, III in view of Markl
and Right. Appellants assert (brief, page 8) that claim 8
recites that the capacitor is charged "to a firing voltage
without activating the strobe," and that the cited references
fail to teach this limitation. We agree. We find that although
Berry, III discloses that a change in the voltage on lines E and
F during an alarm condition activates the speakers 312 and the
flashing lights 310, we find no teaching in Berry, III, Markl or
Right would have taught or suggested charging the capacitor to a
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007