Appeal No. 2000-0328
Application No. 08/863,345 Page 7
Appellant argues (brief, page 9) that Fuller discloses
simultaneous deactivation of both the audible and visible alarms
after simultaneous activation thereof for a predetermined period
of time. We find that Fuller teaches the use of an anti-theft
alarm and locking device for vehicles. Fuller also discloses a
alarm as well as a bright halogen lamp which are activated when
the alarm is triggered (col. 5, lines 29-32). Fuller further
discloses that when the unit is tampered with, the alarm sounds
and lamp 26 flashes for a period of two minutes. From our review
of Chang and Fuller, we agree with appellant for the reasons set
forth by appellant in the brief, that if Chang were modified by
Fuller, the result would be simultaneous deactivation of both the
audible and visual alarms of Chang after a predetermined period
of time.
Appellant asserts (brief, page 9 and reply brief, page 3)
that in Drori the tamper indicator is activated by the vehicle
owner when the vehicle owner disarms the system, whereas
appellant provides means separate from the alarm or alarm means
which is activated in response to sensing of tampering. From our
review of Drori, we find that Drori is directed to an electronic
vehicle security system. In Drori, disarming subroutine 558
occurs in response to the receipt of a properly transmitted code.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007