Appeal No. 2002-2067
Application No. 09/411,730
transmitted to the receiver unit in the vehicle.
At column 5, lines 9-11, Doyle deals with requests to
display diagnostic results.
Nowhere does Doyle disclose, suggest or intimate that the
diagnostic checks are being performed on vehicle components, as
contemplated by the instant invention. To whatever extent the
examiner may choose to call the remote key fob device a “vehicle
component,” since it “relates” to the vehicle, this would still
not lead to a finding of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
because the instant claims (see independent claims 1, 10 and 15)
all require that the electrical components being actuated must be
“of a vehicle.” The electrical components of Doyle’s remote key
fob transmitter are not electrical components “of a vehicle.”
Further, independent claim 1 requires that the electrical
components be “on the vehicle.” Independent claim 10 requires
the programming of an electronic control device “on a vehicle”
with an actuation sequence for a plurality of “vehicle electrical
components.” The remote key fob transmitter of Doyle is not a
“vehicle electrical component.” While the body of independent
claim 15 recites nothing that is not disclosed by Doyle, even
this broad claim includes, in its preamble, that the diagnostic
analysis is performed “upon electronic components of a vehicle”
-5–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007