Appeal No. 1999-0497
Application 08/760,922
portable transmitter and not from the external device. The
examiner has never addressed this particular feature of the
invention.
In responding to appellants’ argument that this
feature is not taught by the applied references, the examiner
notes that the external equipment of Sues and De Vaulx can
(re)initialize the system. This is not, however, what is
recited in the claimed invention. The fact that Sues and De
Vaulx generate a new code signal from the external equipment
does not meet the claim recitation that the new code signal is
generated using the portable transmitter. The examiner has
not addressed the obviousness of this actual claim limitation
relating to this particular feature of the claimed invention.
Since the rejection does not address the fact that this claim
limitation is not met by any of the applied references, the
rejection fails to establish a prima facie case of the
obviousness of the claimed invention.
Based on the discussion above, we do not sustain the
rejection of the claims based on the collective teachings of
Sanders, Lutz, Sues and De Vaulx as set forth by the examiner.
Since neither Batey nor Keller overcomes the deficiency in the
-9-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007