Appeal No. 2000-0328
Application No. 08/863,345 Page 12
means which indicate tampering with the vehicle. We agree with
appellant that the tamper indicating means is activated by the
sending of a proper code to disarm the alarm. We are not
persuaded by the examiner's assertion (answer, page 13) that it
would have been obvious to make the tamper indication of Drori
automatic because "automatic indication would have facilitated
the awareness of this indication to the owner upon his return to
the vehicle by alleviating the necessity of the owner to activate
the system." We agree with appellant (reply brief, page 3) that
the examiner's assertion is an unsupported assumption and does
not constitute the disclosure of prior art. Thus, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 21. Accordingly, the
rejection of claims 2 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
reversed.
We turn next to the rejection of independent claim 34.
Claim 34 is different in scope from claims 2 and 21 as claim 34,
inter alia, does not require means for activating the tamper
indicating means in response to the sensing means sensing
tampering with the vehicle. Appellant asserts (brief, page 8)
that "[c]laim 34 adds that the tamper indicating means is a
visible signal which is produced at the time the alarm is
deactivated." We find appellant's assertion to be inconsistent
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007