Appeal No. 2002-2067
Application No. 09/411,730
We note that the examiner makes no comment about whether it
would have been obvious to adapt Doyle’s teaching of diagnosing
electronic components on a remote transmitter to the diagnosis of
electronic components on a vehicle. Therefore, we will not
comment on the obviousness of doing so.
We also will sustain the rejection of claims 6, 9 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because Doyle is again employed by the
examiner, this time as the primary reference. Additionally,
Ostermann and Wallace are cited for the wiring of a receiver to
electrical components for by-passing an electronic control device
in order to directly signal electrical components. Appellant
does not dispute the teachings of these secondary references,
arguing only the “deficiencies” of Doyle. As stated supra, we do
not find deficiencies in Doyle for anticipating claims 1-4, 7, 8,
15 and 17 and, since claims 6, 9 and 16 are dependent on
certain ones of these claims, we will sustain the examiner’s
rejection.
We turn, finally, to the rejection of claims 19-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Doyle and Traub.
The examiner employs Doyle as above, adding Traub for the
teaching of testing brakes and at least some lights on a vehicle.
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007