Appeal No. 2002-1280
Application 08/995,996
would permit thieves to try to break into automobiles. This is
not a technical reason indicating nonobviousness. See Orthopedic
Equipment Co. v. United States , 702 F.2d 1005, 1013, 217 USPQ
193, 200 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[T]he fact that the two disclosed
apparatus would not be combined by businessmen for economic
reasons is not the same as saying that it could not be done
because skilled persons in the art felt that there was some
technological incompatibility that prevented their combination.
Only the latter fact is telling on the issue of
nonobviousness."); In re Farrenkopf, 713 F.2d 714, 718,
219 USPQ 1, 4 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Moreover, presumably the
signature code is long enough to discourage such attempts.
Appellant disagrees with the examiner's statement that
Karasawa teaches a method in which the user can set codes in a
convenient manner because Karasawa requires the user to manually
set the code in each device to be controlled by the user, which
can hardly be considered a convenient technique (Br10; Br13). It
is argued that the "receiver" of Karasawa does not have dual
modes of code setting and control function (Br13).
The examiner only relies on Karasawa to teach the method of
setting a code in the transmitter, not for everything that
Karasawa teaches. It is agreed that the code has to be set
manually in the receiver of Karasawa. Drori teaches a receiver
having a code setting and control function mode.
- 9 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007