Appeal 2007-1535
Application 10/626,969
references to communicating with the instrument panel and the ignition line.
In short, we see no reason why the serial data bus could not extend
throughout the vehicle to facilitate data communication with various vehicle
devices using the bus.
Notwithstanding these teachings in Boreham, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 based on the record before us,
particularly in light of the shortcomings of the other cited prior art and the
Examiner’s rationale in combining the four cited references in the manner
proposed. We are therefore constrained by the record before us to reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 6, 8, 12-
14, 17, 19-23, 25, 28-32, 35, 37, and 40 which fall with claim 1. Since the
teachings of either Hwang ‘697 or Issa do not cure the deficiencies noted
above, we likewise reverse claims 4, 15, 26, 33, and 38 and claims 5, 7, 16,
18, 24, 27, 34, 36, and 39 for similar reasons.
The Examiner, however, has cited two references, Boreham and
Nykerk, which provide strong evidence of unpatentability for the reasons
indicated below. Accordingly, we enter new grounds of rejection under 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(b) on these and other prior art teachings.
New Grounds of Rejection Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b)
At Least the Independent Claims are Unpatentable Over the Teachings of
Nykerk In View of Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art, Voss, or Leen
Claims 1, 12, 20, 25, 30, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Nykerk in view of Appellant’s admitted prior art in the
Specification or Voss or Leen.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013