Appeal No. 2004-1598
Application No. 09/250,878
Claims 3 and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Bachhuber ‘329, Posner and further in
view of Bachhuber ‘490.
We make reference to the answer (Paper No. 19, mailed
February 25, 2004) for the Examiner’s reasoning, and to the
appeal brief (Paper No. 18, filed December 1, 2003) and the reply
brief (Paper No. 20, filed April 21, 2004) for Appellants’
arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
Appellants argue that one skilled in the art would not be
motivated to add the mechanically encoded, pluggable module of
Posner to the ant-theft device of Bachhuber ‘329 since the plug
connections of Posner only serve to install the parts more easily
(brief, page 14). Appellants further assert that even if the two
references were to be combined, the result would not have taught
the claimed invention because Posner’s pluggable module is not
just an independent pluggable component and, without the other
components connected to it, would not function properly in
another anti-theft device (brief, page 15). Additionally,
Appellants assert that in Posner, the code of the pluggable part
will not be queried for its identification by the central unit
during authentication (reply brief, page 4).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007