Appeal No. 2002-1830
Application No. 09/583,257
vehicle compatibility, does not necessarily1 lead to the conclusion
that the controller 20 stores “a set of device codes” for “a
plurality of different vehicles” as claimed.
The obviousness rejections of claims 12 through 15, 27 through
31 and 39 are reversed because the control system teachings of
Simms and the remote receiver teachings of Grossheim fail to cure
the noted shortcoming in the teachings of Dery.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1 through 8, 11,
16 through 26, 32 through 38 and 40 through 44 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(e) is reversed, and the decision of the examiner rejecting
claims 12 through 15, 27 through 31 and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
is reversed.
1 “To establish inherency, the extrinsic evidence ‘must make
clear that the missing descriptive matter is necessarily present
in the thing described in the reference, and that it would be so
recognized by persons of ordinary skill.’” In re Robertson, 169
F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (quoting
Continental Can Co. v. Monsanto Co., 948 F.2d 1264, 1268, 20
USPQ2d 1746, 1749 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007