Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 14
Application No. 09/834,499
From the lack of any specific arguments by appellant, and our
agreement with the examiner’s position, we are not persuaded of
any error on the part of the examiner regarding the rejection of
claim 2. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 5 and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of
Takagi and further in view of Tallman. The examiner (answer,
page 9) relies upon Tallman for a teaching of an input being a
data port configured for connection with an external programming
device, with the external programming device providing the
predetermined access code. The examiner asserts (id.) that the
modification would have been obvious so as to allow a programming
device to program ID code used in the vehicle theft protection
system. Appellant provides no specific arguments regarding these
claims, but generically argues (brief, page 24) that hindsight
has been used to make a host of obviousness rejections based on
disparate references and that the claims were used as a guide to
selectively pick and choose elements from the various references
so as to arrive at the claimed invention. Appellant’s general
assertion regarding the various references applied does not
address why appellant considers the language of claims 5 and 16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007