Appeal No. 1997-0187 Page 3
Application No. 08/198,671
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Nakano in view of Sanders. Claims 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Nakano and Sanders further in view of Jacob.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 18, mailed Feb. 22, 1996) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 17, filed Nov. 2, 1995) and
reply brief (Paper No. 19, filed May 16, 1996) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Assuming arguendo that the teachings of Nakano and Sanders are properly
combined, we find that the combination of the teachings does not meet the limitations of
the invention as set forth in claim 17. Specifically, neither Nakano nor Sanders teaches or
fairly suggests “an electronic audio device removably mounted on the vehicle and
connectable to the security unit, the electronic audio device including a second memory for
storing a fourth identification code and an audio signal generator for transmitting audio
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007