Appeal No. 2002-1281
Application No. 08/857,711
Moreover, we find no reason, and the examiner has not
convinced us of one, as to why the skilled artisan would have
sought to combine the references in any manner so as to result in
the instant claimed subject matter. It is not clear why
resistors and transponders are considered to be “obvious
substitutions” by the examiner. We find nothing in the cited
references suggesting a modification to APA so as to result in
the use of a second transponder and a fourth coil, wherein the
fourth coil is wrapped around the second transponder and a relay
is connected to normally disable the second transponder and
prevent transmission of a second code to a controller when the
passive anti-theft system is in operation, but to enable the
second transponder, by opening terminal ends of the fourth coil,
to allow transmission of the second code to the controller when
the remote starting system is in operation.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 1-
21, 44 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION
We have not sustained either the rejection of claims 8 and
18 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, or the rejection of
claims 1-21, 44 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
-10–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007