Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 21
Application No. 09/834,499
of the claim. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 11 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Takagi and
further in view of Weber, Flanagan and Hansen. The examiner’s
position (answer, page 15) is that “Iijma et al. in view of
Takagi et al., Weber and Flanagan did not explicitly disclose
wherein activation of said override switch causes said latching
relay to remain latched to continuously enable said ignition
system only following actuation of said latching relay by said
relay.” To overcome this deficiency of the prior art, the
examiner turns to Hansen for a teaching of an override switch,
which when activated, causes the latching relay to remain latched
to continuously enable said ignition system only following
actuation of said latching relay by said relay.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 20) that Hansen is not in the
same field of endeavor as a vehicle theft protection system. It
is asserted (brief, page 21) that an artisan would not have found
the invention of claim 12 obvious without using the claim as a
guide to selectively pick and choose elements and concepts from
the prior art. From our review of Hansen, we find that the
reference is directed to a circuit breaker relay for use in
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007