Appeal No. 2000-1663
Application No. 08/691,663
the examiner’s complete reasoning in support of the rejections,
and to the brief (Paper No. 15) for the appellants’ arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants’ specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We turn first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 10
and 17 through 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. It is the examiner’s
view that Tatematsu discloses the invention as claimed except for
the hand-held fob that includes a button for generating a request
signal. The examiner relies on Simms as evidence that such a
hand held fob is old and well known at the time of the invention.
The examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art at the time the invention was made to
incorporate the teaching of Simms et al. into the
system of Tatematsu et al. in order to provide
additional hand-held remote “panic button” unit to
allow a call for help from the general location around
the vehicle (see the abstract)[answer at page 4].
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007