Appeal No. 2004-0623
Application 09/293,923
thereto. Even if Denman were applied in the manner proposed by the examiner, it is
our opinion that it fails to overcome Bailieux’ shortcomings with regard to the limitations
set forth in claim 12. On this basis the rejection of claims 1-6 and 11 is not sustained.
We reach the same conclusion with regard to claim 8, which stands rejected as
being unpatentable over Karagiannis in view of Schmitz. Claim 8 depends from claim 7,
and adds central locking to the security system of the parent claim. We concluded
above that Karagiannis failed to anticipate claim 7 because it lacked a switch that
disengaged the parking brake after the electronic engine immobilizer was disengaged.
Considering Karagiannis under Section 103 does not cause us to alter this conclusion,
nor does further consideration of Schmitz, which is directed to a device for locking and
unlocking the doors of a motor vehicle. The rejection of claim 8 therefore is not
sustained.
CONCLUSION
The standing rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
is sustained.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007