Appeal No. 2003-0092
Application No. 09/432,525
As for the perimeter beam-sensor of separately argued
claim 20, appellant has not addressed the examiner's finding that
Kemmerer discloses that a curtain of light may be provided around
the space defined by the perimeter of the base as a sensor
mechanism. We do note that appellant agrees with the examiner's
assertion that the use of various switches, such as perimeter-
beam switches, is well known (page 8 of principal brief, last
sentence).
Appellant does not provide a separate argument for the
examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 14 and 16-19 over the
additional Martin reference, stating that "[t]he same reasoning
is believed to apply to Claims 4-6 and 10-19, the remaining
rejected claims that now depend, directly or indirectly, from
Claim 1" (page 8 of principal brief, second paragraph).
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to refute the inference of obviousness
established by the examiner.
In conclusion, based on the foregoing, the examiner's
decision rejecting the appealed claims is affirmed.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007