Appeal No. 2002-1830
Application No. 09/583,257
Claims 13, 15, 28 through 31 and 39 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dery in view of
Grossheim.
Reference is made to the brief (paper number 10) and the
answer (paper number 11) for the respective positions of the
appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us, and
we will reverse all of the rejections of record.
In the findings concerning the teachings of Dery, the examiner
states (answer, page 3) that the bus 24 is a data communications
bus, and acknowledges (answer, page 4) that the controller is not
specifically disclosed as a multi-vehicle controller. Since the
controller in Dery is programmable by the user and is software
driven, the examiner reached the conclusion (answer, page 4) that
“it is inherent that the controller (20) is multi-vehicle
compatible, since the controller maybe [sic, may be] installed in
any vehicle, software driven and is programmed by the owner of the
vehicle.”
Appellant argues (brief, page 9) that Dery discloses a
controller that may be reprogrammed to recognize the address code
of a new transmitter, but does not disclose a controller that is
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007