Appeal No. 2004-0658 Page 9
Application No. 09/419,579
manually graspable, vertical portion of the staff (Cameron's power control assembly
142).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1
and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is affirmed.
The obviousness rejection
We sustain the rejection of claims 2, 3, 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 but not
the rejection of claims 4, 5 and 9 to 13.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591,
18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, in evaluating such references it is proper to
take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.
In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Sullivan teaches the use of a fire alarm heat sensor. The heat sensor is
provided having a support member, an actuating member mounted pivotally therewith
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007