Appeal No. 2001-0678
Application No. 08/877,711
the “strip tease act” of claim 3, the “motivation” given was our
view that it would have been obvious to apply the Sharrard
teachings to many activities where age appropriateness is an
issue, whether it be for admission to movies or strip-tease acts
or for permission to purchase alcohol, tobacco or firearms, etc.
Appellants specifically point only to page 7, lines 3-17, of
our decision as an example of our failure to justify
modifications or motivation. However, reference to that portion
of our decision is very explicit as to how alarms and warning
devices were well known and why it would have been obvious to
incorporate such a device in the system of Sharrard. In
addition, we explained that it would also be reasonable to find
that the simple diversion of the coins themselves in Sharrard
constitutes a “warning device” since it indicates to the operator
that the operator is underage. Accordingly, we find unpersuasive
appellants’ allegation that our decision “lacked any discussion
of the motivation or suggestions justifying the necessary
combination of references needed to reach claim 15” [Request for
Rehearing-page 3].
Appellants’ request for rehearing has been granted to the
extent that we have reconsidered our decision of January 17, 2003
-4–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007