Ex Parte Flick - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2002-1470                                   Page 2               
          Application No. 09/490,192                                                  


                                     BACKGROUND                                       
               Appellant's invention relates to a vehicle alert system for            
          a vehicle having a data bus.  An understanding of the invention             
          can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is                
          reproduced as follows:                                                      
               1.  A vehicle alerting system comprising:                              
               a data communications bus extending within the vehicle;                
               at least one security device at the vehicle for generating             
          security signals on said data communications bus;                           
               a remote receiver to be carried by a user                              
               a local transmitter at the vehicle; and                                
               a paging controller at the vehicle for causing said local              
          transmitter to transmit to said remote receiver based upon                  
          security signals on said data communications bus to thereby alert           
          the user when away from the vehicle.                                        
               The prior art reference of record relied upon by the                   
          examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:                               
          Grossheim et al.           4,794,368              Dec. 27, 1988             
          (Grossheim)                                                                 
               Claims 1-9, 15-19, 21-25, 27-32, and 24-39 stand rejected              
          under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Grossheim.                 
               Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by           
          the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejection,             
          we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 10, mailed            








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007