Appeal No. 2000-0426
Application No. 08/427,447
Again, appellant has not challenged the examiner’s findings
regarding the response to the appellant’s argument regarding the
combination of Joselowitz and Lewis. We are persuaded by the
examiner’s explanation that an artisan in the art of designing
anti-carjacking devices would have been motivated by the Lewis
teachings to use any kind of deterrent fluid as being injected by
the valves of Joselowitz on the driver (user) once the controller
had determined that the user was not an authorized user.
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 5 over
Joselowitz in view of Lewis.
In conclusion, we have sustained the obviousness rejection of
claim 2, 5 and 6 while we have not sustained the obviousness
rejection of claim 7.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 2,
5, 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed-in-part.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007