Appeal No. 2004-0623
Application 09/293,923
Claims 1-6 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bailieux in view of Denman.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Karagiannis in view of Schmitz.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 21) and the final rejection (Paper No. 15) for the examiner's complete
reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief (Paper No. 20) and Reply Brief
(Paper No. 22) for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Rejection Under The First Paragraph Of Section 112
Claim 7 recites a security system for a vehicle comprising an electronic engine
immobilizer, and an electric parking brake, wherein the brake is applied together with
engagement of the immobilizer and is disengaged “by the operation of a manually
actuated switch after the electronic engine immobilizer has been disengaged.” It is the
examiner’s position that a “manually” actuated switch, which the appellant contends
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007