Appeal No. 2002-1830
Application No. 09/583,257
programmed with a set of codes for a plurality of different
vehicles. Appellant argues (brief, page 9 and 10) that Dery
discloses a conventional wiring arrangement of discrete conductors
that connect the microprocessor unit 20 to a plurality of
controlled devices.
Turning first to appellant’s argument concerning the lack of a
bus in Dery, we agree with the examiner (answer, page 9) that “Dery
et al. specifically discloses the bus (24) which interfaces between
the microprocessor unit and various vehicle components to carry out
various controls (col. 6, lines 19-35); thus, a bus which [is]
connected to the microprocessor for communicating and controlling
various vehicle devices is inherently a data communication bus for
communicating with various components of the vehicle.” Turning
next to appellant’s challenge to the examiner’s finding of
inherency for the controller 20 in Dery, we agree with the
appellant’s argument. Although the controller 20 may be multi-
vehicle compatible, it can only store code(s) for one vehicle at
any given time. Thus, the anticipation rejection of claims 1
through 8, 11, 16 through 26, 32 through 38 and 40 through 44 is
reversed because the mere fact that Dery is software driven, and
can be reprogrammed by the owner of a vehicle to provide multi-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007