Appeal No. 2002-0061 Page 5
Application No. 09/253,475
(Fed. Cir. 1992)). "'a prima facie case of obviousness is established when the
teachings from the prior art itself would . . . have suggested the claimed subject matter
to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'" In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529,
1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143,
147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the examiner admits that "[i]t is not very clear in Sayers that the intrusion
detector is a motion detector," (Examiner's Answer at 4), and we find no mention of a
motion detector therein. For its part, Burayez discloses "a Vehicle Defense
System (VDS)," col. 1, l. 11, "for defending or protecting an enclosed property, such as
an automobile. . . ." Id. at ll. 9-11. In the VDS, "sensors 3 sense or detect any violation
or insult to the integrity of the vehicle and produce or send a signal to the logic
controller 2a. The signal to the logic controller 2a is used to determine whether or not
to trigger the VDS." Col. 2, ll. 39-44. These sensors "can include . . . motion sensors
. . . ." Id. at ll. 44-45.
The sensors of Burayez, however, are not located inside the vehicle. To the
contrary, the "sensors are located outside the vehicle. . . ." Id. at l. 20. Because the
sensors are located outside the vehicle, these would not generate a triggering signal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007