Appeal No. 2000-0328
Application No. 08/863,345 Page 11
promotes protection of a vehicle against theft." We find that
both Chang (figure 6) and Fuller (figure 1) disclose an anti-
theft device, including alarm means, that is mountable on a
vehicle and limits rotation of the vehicle steering wheel. Thus,
we find that both Chang and Fuller disclose both mechanical and
electrical anti-theft devices. We therefore sustain the
rejection of claim 20. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 20
and dependent claims 22-33, which fall with independent claim 20,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to claims 2 and 21. We reverse the rejection
of these claims because we find no teaching or suggestion in the
prior art of activating LED 143 of Chang after expiration of the
time period that the alarm is in an activated mode. In view of
Chang's teaching (col. 3, lines 35-37) that "LED 143 flashes at a
particular frequency constantly, getting on a break-in burglars
nerves," we find no suggestion to turn on the LED after the alarm
is deactivated. In addition, even if we provided Chang with a
tamper indicating means as taught by Drori, claims 2 and 21 would
not be met. In Drori, the tamper indicating means, are not
activated in response to sensing means sensing tampering with the
vehicle because the setting of sensor and target flags is
insufficient to constitute activation of the tamper indicating
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007