Appeal No. 2000-0328
Application No. 08/863,345 Page 6
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
We consider first the rejection of claim 1 based on the
teachings of Chang, Fuller, and Drori. We make reference to the
examiner's answer for the examiner's position. Appellant asserts
(brief, page 9) that alarms 15 and 16 of Chang operate
simultaneously with LED 143 to provide audible and visual alarms.
We find that Chang discloses (figure 2) a steering wheel lock
having an alarm, for use as a vehicle anti-theft device. Chang
discloses a "first alarm means 15" (col. 2, line 43). The alarm
display is a bright LED which can flash to demonstrate various
working conditions. When alarm means 15 is shaken, detections
are obtained by a pick-up means, amplified and delivered to a CPU
for judgment as to activate an alarm circuitry. If the judgment
is positive, speakers are used to sound the alarm (col. 2, line
63 to col. 3, line 11). LED 143 is electrically connected to the
first alarm means (col. 4, lines 44 and 45). The alarm means 15
and LED flash simultaneously (col. 3, lines 45-50). As shown in
figure 5, the system of Chang is powered by a 3V power supply.
As stated by the examiner (answer, page 4) Chang does not
specifically disclose use of timing means for deactivating the
alarm after a predetermined period of time.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007