Appeal No. 2000-0328
Application No. 08/863,345 Page 2
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to a vehicle anti-theft system
with tampering indicator. An understanding of the invention can
be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is
reproduced as follows:
1. A vehicle anti-theft device comprising, electrical
circuit means including alarm means having activated and
deactivated modes, sensing means for sensing tampering with said
vehicle, means for shifting said alarm means to said activated
mode in response to said sensing means sensing tampering with
said vehicle, means including timing means for shifting said
alarm means from said activated mode to said deactivated mode
after a predetermined period of time, tamper indicating means
separate from said alarm means for indicating tampering with said
vehicle, and means for activating said tamper indicating means in
response to said sensing means sensing tampering with said
vehicle.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Fuller 5,055,823 Oct. 8, 1991
Drori 5,157,375 Oct. 20, 1992
Chang 5,598,725 Feb. 4, 1997
Claims 1-47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chang in view of Fuller and Drori2,3.
2 The reference to Drori was added by the examiner in the advisory
action (Paper No. 8, mailed July 14, 1998) as support for the examiner's
taking notice of well known prior art. The examiner's reliance on Drori was
necessitated by the statement of appellant (Paper No. 6, filed March 27, 1998)
that "applicant requests the citation of prior art showing the use of separate
tamper indicating means in a vehicle security system and which is operable
after timed deactivation of the anti-theft alarm in accordance with the
applicant's claimed invention." Although the examiner should have positively
recited Drori in the statement of the rejection, because appellant has filed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007