Appeal No. 2002-1646
Application No. 09/440,233
suggestion to make the combination suggested by the Examiner could
only come from Appellant’s own disclosure and not from any
teachings or suggestions in the references themselves.
We have also reviewed the Haskin and Hara references, applied
by the Examiner to address the remote location and threshold
resetting features, respectively, of several of the appealed
claims. We find nothing, however, in the disclosures of Haskin or
Hara which would overcome the previously discussed deficiencies of
Kobayashi and Shimura.
Accordingly, since we are of the opinion that the prior art
applied by the Examiner does not support the obviousness rejection,
we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 9, and 15,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007