Appeal No. 2002-1281
Application No. 08/857,711
transmission. Further, the examiner relies on Nose for a vehicle
remote control system wherein the vehicle is programmed to switch
or enable/disable different codes for controlling the vehicle.
The examiner cites Keller for a teaching of each remote
transmission incrementing a code in a receiver to a different
code for comparison to the next code transmitted, for improving
security by preventing intercepted previous transmissions. See
page 4 of the answer.
Incredibly, and without any convincing reason for doing so,
other than possible hindsight, the examiner finds, from these
cited teachings, that it would have been
obvious...to have combined the remote controlled relay
for bypassing a resistor key disclosed by Cantrell with a
transponder key system of the admitted prior art wherein
a second transponder rather than a second resistor is
selectively enabled by the relay in order operate [sic]
with the security system because the resistor and
transponder are obvious substitutions for providing
authorized codes and the transponder includes known
advantages such as contactless communication which
overcomes errors caused by incomplete contact connection”
(answer-pages 4-5).
The examiner’s reasoning, even if arguably acceptable, does
not address the claim limitation of a “fourth coil” and its
specifically claimed interconnection with the second transponder
and the relay.
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007