Appeal No. 2006-1293 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/437,840
switch contacts within the device are closed when the form is shaken or tapped.
Therefore, the Fraser device detects motion within the form.
We have examined the disclosures of Langhorne and Ray and determined that
neither of these references cures the deficiencies of Fraser. Therefore, we will not
sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 1 and claims 3 and 4 dependent thereon.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Fraser in view of Langhorne or Ray and further in view of
Hoshi.
In the examiner's view, Fraser in view of Langhorne and Ray describes the
invention of claim 2 except that these references do not describe making the motion
detector in the form of a light sensor. The examiner relies on Hoshi for disclosing a
display device that includes and light sensor and concludes:
[I]t would have been obvious to one in the art to modify
Fraser by making the motion sensor in the form of a light
sensor since this would allow the light and sound to be
activated in an easier, less expensive, and better manner
[answer at pages 4 to 5].
This rejection relies on Fraser for disclosing a motion sensor for detecting motion
outside of the form which we found lacking in the preceding rejection. In addition, a
motion sensor in the form of light which would be activated when the sensor senses any
object as taught by Hoshi, would defeat the purpose of the Fraser divider as the sensor
would be activated when a person was detected in the vicinity of the sensor and not
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007