Appeal No. 2002-0061 Page 6
Application No. 09/253,475
only in response to motion inside the vehicle. To the contrary, the outside sensors
would generate a triggering signal responsive to motion outside the vehicle.
Because Sayers does not mention any motion detector, and Burayez locates its
sensors outside a vehicle to be protected, we are not persuaded that teachings from
the references would have suggested locating a motion detector inside an area to be
protected to generate a triggering signal only in response to motion inside the area.
Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 1; of claims 2-5 and 7-9,
which fall therewith; of claim 10; and of claims 11, 12, and 18-21, which fall therewith.
The examiner fails to allege, let alone show, that the addition of Drori or Crump
cures the aforementioned deficiency of Sayers and Burayez. Therefore, we reverse
the obviousness rejections of claims 6 and 13-17.
CONCLUSION
In summary, the rejections of claims 1-21 under § 103(a) are reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007