Appeal No. 2002-2067
Application No. 09/411,730
We will sustain this rejection because, in our view, Traub
more than makes up for any deficiencies which may exist in Doyle.
In fact, we find Traub, alone, would anticipate, and certainly
make obvious, the instant claimed subject matter. Traub clearly
tests operation of electronic components, such as brakes, and
lights, on a vehicle and does so with a remote control so that
the testing may be performed by one person, just as in the
instant invention.
Alternatively, Traub is merely cumulative to Doyle’s
teachings because, as explained supra, it was well known to
artisans that operation of a remote transmitter to operate door
locks on a vehicle will usually also blink the lights on the
vehicle, as well as make an audible sound.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 19-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Moreover, we have reviewed Traub and we note the highly
relevant nature of this reference. We find it curious that the
examiner did not apply Traub as an anticipatory reference against
at least the claims not requiring the programmed sequence. Traub
does appear to disclose a plurality of switches, with each
switch, which can be “programmed,” connected to actuate a
different electrical component on the vehicle. There does not
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007