Appeal No. 1998-1257
Application 08/337,095
Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir.
1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996).
The examiner has articulated no motivation, based on the
teachings of the prior art, for making the range of
transmission of the control signal affecting the status of the
vehicle’s security system smaller than that of the other
control signal. That omission is especially troublesome here
when Lindmayer discloses just the opposite. The examiner
also states (Answer at 7): “using the signals for a different
function is not novel.” That statement is plainly erroneous.
The combination recited by the appellant’s claims is indeed
novel, on the record developed by the examiner. Lindmayer’s
remotely transmitted signal affecting the status of the
vehicle locking or anti-theft functions does not have a
smaller or shorter range than that of the other signal.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of appellant’s
claims 7-20 cannot be sustained.
B. The rejection of claims 21-26
The appellant’s arguments are not commensurate in scope
with independent claims 21 and 25, neither of which specify
any relationship between the range of transmission of the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007