Appeal No. 1998-2864
Application No. 08/338,235
of its use being subject to the well known design considerations
of wireless vs. non-wireless communication.
Thus, we conclude, as did the examiner, that the artisan
would have found it an obvious modification of Kobayashi to
extend its teachings to a wireless environment where the portable
device 25 may be in wireless communication with vehicle 1.
With regard to appellant’s argument that the monitoring
nature of the instant invention distinguishes over the diagnosis
nature of Kobayashi, we, again, disagree. Clearly, monitoring is
part of diagnosing since a diagnosis cannot be made unless a
situation is monitored.
Thus, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. 103 over Kobayashi. We will also sustain the rejection
of independent claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. 103 since this claim falls
with claim 1 [principal brief-page 6] and is not argued
separately.
Turning to claim 2, with which claims 4, 8 and 19 stand or
fall together, this claim recites an alarm provided by other than
the display device and the provision of both an alarm and a
display of an alarm condition in response to an alarm-condition
signal sent from the control-console processing means.
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007