Appeal No. 2000-2128
Application No. 09/077,102
obviousness, Guimarin does not disclose a vehicle rental
system, and therefore does not overcome the deficiencies of
Bae noted in the foregoing discussion of rejection (1).
At page 4 of the final rejection, the examiner seems to
be of the view that on page 7 of the amendment filed on July
16, 1999 (Paper No. 5), appellants admitted that a
computerized control means as recited in part [c] of claim 20
was prior art. We have reviewed the part of the amendment in
question, but do
not find therein any admission by appellants that a
computerized control for automated monitoring, commanding and
controlling of vehicle renting was known in the prior art.
Rejection (2) therefore will not be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 20, 21, 23 to 28
and 32 is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007