Appeal No. 2002-1281
Application No. 08/857,711
references to arrive at the claimed invention. Such reason must
stem from some teachings, suggestions or implications in the
prior art as a whole or knowledge generally available to one
having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley
Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.),
cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta
Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664
(Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp.
Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ
929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the examiner are an
essential part of complying with the burden of presenting a prima
facie case of obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
We have reviewed the examiner’s rationale for making the
rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we conclude that the examiner
has failed to establish the requisite prima facie case of
obviousness.
Initially, the examiner notes that APA describes a remote
control vehicle starting system with many of the claimed
elements, including a transponder, but the examiner recognizes
that APA lacks a selectively operable second transponder for
operation with a passive anti-theft system. Accordingly, the
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007