Appeal No. 2002-1280
Application 08/995,996
brief merely points out what the claims cover and does not
separately argue the patentability of the claims. Accordingly,
pursuant to § 1.192(c)(7), we treat the claims as falling
together with claim 1, but exercise our judgment in determining
whether the claims stand together with claim 1.
The examiner's statement that "[a] finding that the
appellant's arguments do not overcome the rejection of claim 1
for example would also be a finding that the appellant's
arguments fail to overcome the rejection of the other claims"
(EA3) is incorrect as a general proposition since, for example,
dependent claims add limitations which may make the subject
matter patentable. However, since only claim 1 is at issue, the
examiner's statement is harmless error.
Obviousness
Contents of Drori and Karasawa
Drori teaches an electronically programmable remote control
for a vehicle security system. In the prior art, transmitters
and receivers operated on a permanently encoded security code
(col. 1, lines 49-68). If a transmitter was lost it was
necessary to obtain another transmitter and have it coded for
that particular receiver, which was beyond the expertise of most
users (col. 1, line 63 to col. 2, line 19). More importantly, if
the user wanted to change the code because of a lost or stolen
- 4 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007