Appeal No. 2006-1293 Παγε 13
Application No. 10/437,840
describes a motion responsive signaling device including a pair of switch contacts that
“can be closed by shaking or tapping housing 11.” The described shaking or tapping of
housing 11, which is signaled by closing of switch contacts in response thereto, is, in my
opinion, motion outside the form (housing 11). Moreover, motion such as shaking of a
shelf, conveyor or other support on which the housing 11 is supported, which is certainly
motion outside the housing, would be signaled by the described motion responsive
signaling device, as such motion would be translated to the housing 11. Additionally,
pressure responsive switch 32 described in the last paragraph of column 5 of Fraser
detects pushing motion outside the housing 11 that is translated through indicia bearing
strip 34 to flexible plate 36 to close contacts 38 to energize light emitting diode 30.
The argument actually made by appellant (brief, pp. 3-4) with respect to the
rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 as being unpatentable over Fraser in view of Langhorne or
Ray is that Fraser does not disclose any backlit textual information and that neither
Langhorne nor Ray provides any suggestion to do so. This argument likewise fails to
persuade me that these claims are patentable over the applied references as the
feature of backlighting of textual information is taught or suggested by Fraser.
Specifically, Fraser discloses forming the three side walls 15 of the housing 11 of a hard
transparent plastic material (col. 4, ll. 6-9), embedding a circuit including a light source
30 in one of the side walls in combination with pressure responsive switch 32 and
providing an indicia bearing strip 34 immediately above the pressure responsive switch
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007