Appeal No. 2002-0061 Page 3
Application No. 09/253,475
§ 103(a) as obvious over Sayers, Burayez, Drori, and U.S. Patent No. 4,642,612
("Crump").1
OPINION
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellant in toto, we
address the main point of contention therebetween. Admitting that "[i]t is not very clear
in Sayers that the intrusion detector is a motion detector," (Examiner's Answer at 4), the
examiner asserts, "Burayez teaches a similar system wherein a motion detector is used
to detect an intrusion." (Id.) The appellant argues, "Burayez' motion detector, if any, is
positioned outside of the area to be protected. . . ." (Appeal Br. at 10.)
"Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?"
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). In answering the question, "the Board must give claims their broadest
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
1"Where a reference is relied on to support a rejection, whether or not in a 'minor
capacity,' there would appear to be no excuse for not positively including the reference
in the statement of rejection." In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341, 1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406,
407 n.3 (CCPA 1970). Here, although the examiner mentions "Reeder," (Examiner's
Answer at 21), he fails to include the reference in the statements of the three rejections.
(Id. at 3, 7, 9.) Accordingly, we will not consider the reference in deciding this appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007