Appeal 2006-2624
Application 10/223,246
than a warning level that has been preset, to output to an indication warning
of high RF radiation. From our review of the applied prior art, there is no
teaching or showing among them of presetting a warning level associated
with the power level of an antenna and then performing such a comparison
operation such as to yield an indication of some kind to the user if the level
is exceeded. The Examiner’s rationale of the obviousness of doing so such
as to not change the scope of the invention is without merit. Clearly, there is
no prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter of claim 19 on
appeal.
We reach a similar conclusion with respect to features recited in
dependent claims 7 through 9 which are also equally recited in dependent
claims 16 through 18. These respectively recite an indicator comprising a
speaker or a vibrator or a smell generator. The Examiner’s reasoning of
obviousness at the top of page 5 of the Answer essentially dismisses the
features themselves and sets forth a presumptuous line of reasoning. Our
review of the applied prior art indicates that there is absolutely no evidence
presented to us to prove by means of applied prior art the obviousness of a
broadly defined indicator as comprising a sound, vibration or smell. Even
though the features seem trivial and perhaps well known in the art especially
since they are only passively mentioned in the disclosed invention,
nevertheless we are constrained to reverse the rejection of these claims.
Should the Examiner produce prior art evidence of the recited features in a
properly stated rejection, we would reconsider our reversal of these claims.
The same applies to independent claim 19.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013