Appeal No. 2000-0328
Application No. 08/863,345 Page 13
with the precise language of claim 34, which recites "means
separate from said alarm means for providing a visible signal
after said predetermined period of time for indicating said
sensing of vibration of said anti-theft device." Contrary to
appellant's assertion, we find that claim 34 does not require
providing the visible signal at the time the alarm is
deactivated, or "immediately" in response to a tampering event
(reply brief, page 3), but rather only requires that the visible
signal is provided after the alarm is deactivated. Claim 34 does
not recite when the visible signal is provided, and as broadly
drafted, the claim language reads upon activating the LED panel
of Drori when the vehicle owner returns to the vehicle and
provides a proper code to disarm the system. While we agree with
appellant (brief, page 10) that "[t]he only modification
suggested by Drori would be to provide for Chang to respond to
the owner's disarming of the system to indicate that tampering
took place" we find that the teachings of Drori are sufficient to
meet the claim language of providing the visible signal after
said predetermined period of time for indicating said sensing of
vibration of said anti-theft device. Thus, we find that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to provide
Chang with a visible indicator that would enable the vehicle
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007