Appeal No. 2006-1293 Παγε 7
Application No. 10/437,840
when a person indicated in some way that it was desired to purchase the items in the
divider.
For the foregoing reasons, we will not sustain this rejection.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser, Langhorne or Ray and Misaresh. The
examiner's reasoning in regard to the rejection can be found on page 5 of the answer.
We will not sustain this rejection for the reasons given above for the rejection of
claim 1, from which claims 5 and 6 depend as neither Langhorne nor Misaresh cures
the deficiencies noted above for Fraser.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 3 to 6 as being
unpatentable over Misaresh in view of Fraser. The examiner's rationale regarding this
rejection can be found on page 6 of the answer. The examiner relies on Fraser for
teaching a motion detector operative to activate a lamp in response to motion detected
outside the form. We will not sustain this rejection because as we have discussed
above, the motion detector described in Fraser does not detect motion outside the form.
We turn next to the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Misaresh in view of Hoshi. The examiner's
rationale regarding this rejection can be found on page 7 of the answer. Recognizing
that Misaresh does not describe a motion sensor, the examiner relies on Hoshi and
concludes:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007