Appeal No. 1999-0497
Application 08/760,922
the claimed invention except for the diagnostic interface to
switch or control the receiver in a (re)initialization state
from the external of the vehicle. The examiner cites Sues or
De Vaulx as teaching the use of external equipment for
(re)initializing the status of a vehicle locking and unlocking
system. The examiner finds that it would have been obvious to
the artisan to have utilized an external apparatus as taught
by Sues or De Vaulx to send signals to the locking/unlocking
system of Sanders. The examiner cites Lutz as teaching the
use of a vehicle diagnostic interface. The examiner finds
that use of the Lutz diagnostic interface would have been
obvious because it would reduce the number of communication
interfaces required for the vehicle [answer, pages 4-5].
After pointing out the individual deficiencies of the
applied prior art, appellants argue that none of the applied
references teach the last feature of claim 1, specifically,
“wherein a new code signal is generated using the transmitter
and is transmitted to the receiver, the new code signal then
being stored as a new-predetermined code signal in the
receiver.” According to appellants, since none of the applied
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007