Appeal No. 2002-1784
Application No. 09/583,333 Page 11
From all of the above, we find that the combined teachings
of Dery and Drew suggest the limitations claim 4. As claims 6,
8, 14-18, 20, 28, 30, 38-40, and 42 fall with claim 4 (brief,
page 5), the rejection of claims 6, 8, 14-18, 20, 28, 30, 38-40,
and 42 is affirmed. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 4-6, 8,
14-18, 20, 28, 30, 38-40, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 9-12, 21-24, 31-34,
and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dery in view
of Drew and further in view of Di Croce. The examiner's position
(final rejection, page 5) is that neither Dery nor Drew disclose
a remote start controller comprising a multi-vehicle compatible
remote start controller. To overcome this deficiency in Dery and
Drew, the examiner turns to Di Croce for a teaching of a
programmable receiver 22. The examiner takes the position (id.)
that:
[t]he receiver (22) is a multi-vehicle compatible
receiver which is programmed by a programmer to
acknowledge or recognized [sic] the program code for
controlling various function within the vehicle
including a remote vehicle starter (col. 5, lines 10-
40). Thus, it would have been obvious and well known
in the art that a remote controller of the vehicle is
multi-vehicle compatible and programmable via the
transmitter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007