Appeal No. 1998-1257
Application 08/337,095
second signal. According to the appellant’s specification,
this differentiation in range of transmission combats and
deters unauthorized code-grabbing or interception of the
security code.
The examiner relied on Lindmayer for teaching the remote
transmission of two signals to a vehicle, one of which changes
the status of the vehicle security system. The problem,
however, is that according to Lindmayer, the range of
transmission of the signal changing the vehicle’s locking and
anti-theft security status is greater than that of the second
signal which does not affect the status of the vehicle’s
locking and anti-theft functions. In column 3, lines 39-44,
Lindmayer states:
Thereby, the receivable output power of the hand-
held transmitter and its range when controlling the
convenience function (KB) are clearly reduced
compared to its relatively large range for the
control of the locking (ZV) and the anti-theft (EDW)
functions.
The appellant is correct that Lindmayer teaches the exact
opposite of the appellant’s claimed feature concerning the
range of transmission of the control signals.
The examiner improperly ignored a critical difference
between the appellant’s claimed invention and the disclosure
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007