Appeal No. 2003-1510
Application No. 09/463,109
Initially, we note that the premise for the rejection over the Squires reference is
unclear. Squires discloses an anti-theft “enclosing device” for radios, stereos, or similar
equipment in motor vehicles. A description of activation or deactivation of the device
appears at column 7, lines 55 through 63 of the reference. The device is connected to
the ignition system, and activated or deactivated upon operation of the ignition switch.
The rejection admits that Squires does not disclose an immobilizer. However,
the statement of the rejection sets forth the finding that the ignition switch described by
Squires “functions” as the immobilizer as claimed. The rejection concludes that it would
have been obvious to use a system which shuts down the vehicle “as taught by
Squires....” Squires, however, teaches activation or deactivation of the device by
operation of the ignition switch.
During patent prosecution, the USPTO is to apply to claims the broadest
reasonable meaning of the words, consistent with their ordinary usage as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44
USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997). The terms used in the claims bear a “heavy
presumption” that they mean what they say and have the ordinary meaning that would
be attributed to those words by persons skilled in the relevant art. Texas Digital Sys.,
Inc. v. Telegenix, Inc., 308 F.3d 1193, 1202, 64 USPQ2d 1812, 1817 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Appellant’s specification (e.g., page 1) describes operation of an immobilizer as
part of a drive lock system in a motor vehicle. The examiner has provided no evidence
tending to show that an artisan in the field relating to anti-theft devices in motor vehicles
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007