Appeal No. 2000-1663
Application No. 08/691,663
We will sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 17
because the appellant has not argued the separate patentability
of this claim.1
Claims 18 through 20 require that the controller initiate an
assistance request only when the button on the fob is
continuously pressed by the user for at least a preselected
amount of time.
Tatematsu discloses that there is a need to correct
incorrect operation of switches in the case of an emergency when
a large number of buttons or switches are provided. These large
number of buttons indicate that the police, an ambulance or a tow
truck should be contacted. Therefore, Tatematsu requires that
each button or switch be activated for a predetermined time frame
before a microcomputer determines that an emergency item has been
selected. However, Simms provides for a single panic button.
1
1 We further note, however, that Simms teaches a
transmitter suported on the vehicle and communicates with the
transmitter as we discussed above. In addition, the transmitter
within the vehicle communicates with a remote location based upon
receipt of the wireless signal from the remote activation module.
As such, in our view, Simms discloses each element of claim 17.
A disclosure that anticipates under 35 U.S.C. § 102 also renders
the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, for "anticipation
is the epitome of obviousness." Jones v. Hardy, 727 F.2d 1524,
1529, 220 USPQ 1021, 1025 (Fed. Cir. 1984). See also In re
Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA 1982); In
re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007