Appeal No. 2002-2308
Application No. 08/943,889
While appellant stresses the “push-off” language of the
claim, and it appears to us that the broad language, “push-
on/push-off switch,” per se, is merely a “pushbutton switch,”
there is additional language in instant claims 6 and 16 which
requires that the switch toggle between being coupled to the
battery and being uncoupled from the battery or that the switch
toggle between the receiver being enabled or disabled. There is
absolutely no suggestion in Walton that switch 15 may operate in
such a manner and the examiner has not suggested that it would.
The examiner merely argues that the term “push-on/push-off” is an
alternative term and that the mere teaching, by Walton, of a
pushbutton switch which has a “push-on” feature is enough to meet
the claim language. However, the examiner does not take into
account the “toggling” language of the claims. Accordingly, we
will not sustain the rejection of claims 6, 8, 9 and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103, since neither Froschmeier nor Kawauchi provide
for the deficiency of Walton.
Further, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 17-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because claims 17-19 depend from claim 16
and the additional reference of Brady also does not provide for
the deficiency of Walton.
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007