Appeal No. 2006-1293 Παγε 12
Application No. 10/437,840
BAHR, Administrative Patent Judge, concurring-in-part and dissenting-in-part:
I join my colleagues in the affirmance of the rejections of claim 7 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, claims 1, 2, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Misaresh in view of Hoshi and claims 3 and 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Misaresh in view of Hoshi and Fraser. For the reasons that
follow, I cannot join my colleagues in the reversal of the rejections of claims 1, 3 and 4
as being unpatentable over Fraser in view of Langhorne or Ray, claim 2 as being
unpatentable over Fraser in view of Langhorne or Ray and further in view of Hoshi,
claims 5 and 6 as being unpatentable over Fraser in view of Langhorne or Ray and
further in view of Misaresh, and claims 1 and 3-6 as being unpatentable over Misaresh
in view of Fraser.
The decision of the majority to reverse the rejections of claims 1, 3 and 4 as
being unpatentable over Fraser in view of Langhorne or Ray, claim 2 as being
unpatentable over Fraser in view of Langhorne or Ray and further in view of Hoshi,
claims 5 and 6 as being unpatentable over Fraser in view of Langhorne or Ray and
further in view of Misaresh, and claims 1 and 3-6 as being unpatentable over Misaresh
in view of Fraser is grounded on their agreement with appellant that Fraser does not
describe a motion detector operative to activate a lamp in response to motion detected
outside the form, as required by claim 1. Initially, I find no such argument in appellant’s
brief. Secondly, and more importantly, I note that Fraser (col. 6, last full para.)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007