Appeal No. 2003-0287
Application No. 09/034,963
Claims 1, 8, 11, 14, 21, 25 and 28 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Suman in view of
appellant’s admitted prior art, Sollestre and Grossheim.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 22) and the
answer (paper number 23) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
For all of the reasons expressed by the appellant, and for the
additional reasons set forth infra, we will reverse the obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 8, 11, 14, 21, 25 and 28.
At the outset, we agree with the appellant’s argument (brief,
page 9) that the statement “wireless communication techniques may
also be used” is an expression as to how the disclosed invention
may be implemented, and is not an admission by appellant. As this
statement is part of appellant’s disclosed invention, the examiner
may not properly rely on it to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness.
We additionally agree with the appellant’s argument (brief,
pages 8 and 9) that the control module 30 in Suman is permanently
installed within the vehicle via the pin connector 38, and does not
use wireless programming techniques. The manually programmable
switches 31 through 35 are located on the control module 30 (Figure
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007