Ex Parte NGUYEN - Page 2




          Appeal No. 2000-0426                                                        
          Application No. 08/427,447                                                  


          from the controller.  The RF interrogating signal from the                  
          controller is sent on a periodic basis and within a limited                 
          distance from said controller.  When the response signal is found           
          to be an unauthorized signal by the controller, the latter is               
          operable to disable the engine.                                             
               The following claim is further illustrative of the invention:          
          2.  A two part system for disabling the engine of a motor vehicle           
          in the event of non-authorized use of said vehicle, said system             
          comprising: a first part comprising: a controller in electrical             
          connection with the engine of said vehicle and having means to              
          disable said engine, said controller having a means for propagating         
          a radio frequency interrogating signal on a periodic basis and              
          within a limited area; said area being defined in terms of the              
          distance from said controller; a second part comprising: a radio            
          frequency transmitting and receiving device for sending out a ratio         
          frequency response signal in response to said interrogating signal          
          and of size suitable for concealment on a human; said controller            
          having a means for receiving said response signal and for                   
          determining whether said response is an authorized signal, said             
          controller having a means for disabling said engine in the event            
          that said signal is not an authorized signal.                               
               The examiner relies on the following references:                       
          Lewis, Sr. et al. (Lewis)          5,493,268      Feb. 20, 1996             
                                                  (filed Apr. 29, 1994)               
          Joselowitz et al. (Joselowitz)     2,233,487A     Jan. 09, 1991             
          (UK Patent Application)                                                     
               Claims 2, 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as             
          being unpatentable over Joselowitz, while the examiner adds Lewis           
          to Joselowitz for the rejection of claim 5.                                 



                                          2                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007