Appeal No. 2007-0800
Application No. 10/066,267
motivated to combine Muenchow’s device with Eppley’s remote power
source.
Both power sources are attached to the tip-ups by similar attachment
means. (See Eppley, Figures 2-4, item 28; Muenchow Figure 1, and col. 3,
ll. 60-65 (“The . . . light system 25 is secured to the arm 19 of the tipup flag
alert 17 by a pair of circular bands 73, which may be flexible rubber
rings.”).) Eppley’s power source can be replaced by simply removing the
source and attaching a new one. However, because Muenchow’s power
source is contained within an enclosure (Muenchow, Figure 3), the
additional steps of disassembling and reassembling the enclosure are
required in order to reattach the power source to the tip-up. We therefore
agree with the Examiner (Answer 4) that Eppley’s remote power source is
more convenient that Muenchow’s.
Eppley’s remote power source also provides the advantage of easy
deactivation, allowing the user to conserve the power source when it is not
needed. (Eppley, col. 3, ll. 44-47 (“To preserve the power source during
other than low light hours or hours of darkness, the light device is
deactivated by simply removing battery clip 24 from battery 25.”).)
Because Eppley’s remote power source has distinct advantages
compared to Muenchow’s, we agree with the Examiner that the references
can be properly combined.
Appellant further argues that “in this very crowded area of
technology, improvements, which the non-artisan may view as minor, are
still significant and patentable.” (Br. 13) We are not persuaded by this
argument.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013