Appeal No. 2000-0426
Application No. 08/427,447
do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 7 over Joselowitz.
With respect to claim 5, the examiner asserts (answer at page
5) that
it would have been obvious ... to readily recognize the
desirability to incorporate the additional carjacking
deterrent mechanism such as tear gas, dye, irritant
fluid, or alarms as taught by Lewis into the system of
Joselowitz in order to provide additional carjacking
deterrent to the existing system where the combination
would disable the vehicle and identifying [sic] the
carjacker as well.
Appellant argues (brief at pages 10 and 11) that
Lewis deals with the carjacking by thwarting it, A [sic]
secondary reference like Lewis might be useful with a
primary reference but there must be some teaching as to
why it would be useful when the primary reference is
different in purpose. .... Moreover it is the
combination of the applicant’s use of a dye
identification system together with a timed disabling
means that produces a result that is new and non obvious.
The examiner responds (answer at page 7) that
Joselowitz specifically states in (sic) page 4 that the
“enabling circuit” controls a fuel valve or a switch in
the ignition circuit. It may also control a variety of
other disabling devices and/or door lock on the vehicle.
On the other hand, Lewis teaches the injection of tear
gas, irritant fluid, dye or other deterrent upon
detecting of an unauthorized use. Thus,..., it would
have been obvious ... to supplement the system of
Joselowitz with the tear gas or dye injection as taught
by Lewis [,] especially [noting that] the enabling
circuit of Joselowitz may control variety of other
devices.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007