Appeal No. 2000-0328
Application No. 08/863,345 Page 10
means of Chang are activated during the same period of time.
Although we find that in Drori the flags associated with the
triggers and sensors are set when tampering occurs, and agree
with appellant that the tamper indicating LED panel of Drori is
activated in response to entry of a DISARM or IDENTIFY
subroutine, we find that the claimed tamper indicating means is
disclosed by Chang. Thus, we find that Chang and Fuller suggest
the language of claim 1, and consider Drori to be surplusage. We
are not persuaded by appellant's assertion (brief, page 9) that
the prior art does not teach forewarning the vehicle owner that
the vehicle has been tampered with prior to the vehicle owner
reentering or approaching the vehicle, because the claim does not
require this limitation. Nothing in the language of claim 1
requires the tamper indicating means to be activated after the
alarm means is deactivated. From all of the above, we will
sustain the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 1, and dependent claims 3-19 which fall with claim 1, under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
Turning next to independent claim 20, appellant (brief, page
12) presents the same arguments with respect to claim 1 and adds
that claim 20 "patentably distinguishes from claim 1 by providing
dual mechanical and electrical anti-theft devices which further
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007