Appeal No. 2002-1784
Application No. 09/583,333 Page 12
From our review of Di Croce, we find that remote module 20 is
programmable, but find no teaching of the receiver 22 being
multi-vehicle compatible. We agree with appellant (brief, pages
13 and 14) that Di Croce fails to disclose that the remote module
20 is multi-vehicle compatible. Accordingly, we find that the
examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claims 9-12, 21-24, 31-34, and 43. The rejection
of claims 9-12, 21-24, 31-34, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
therefore reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007