Appeal No. 2004-1598
Application No. 09/250,878
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner asserts
that while Bachhuber ‘329 teaches an anti-theft system with
multiple control units, Posner was relied on for suggesting how
to physically connect a control unit more easily (answer, page
7). The Examiner reasons that since Posner provides for a
pluggable memory and provides “memorized identification to the
processor,” similar to the memory function in Bachhuber ‘329, it
would have been obvious to combine the references (answer, page
8).
The initial burden of establishing reasons for
unpatentability rests on the Examiner. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1446, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Where, as
here, a conclusion of obviousness is premised upon a combination
of references, the examiner must identify a reason, suggestion,
or motivation which would have led an inventor to combine those
references. Pro-Mold & Tool Co. V. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1629, (Fed. Cir. 1996).
After reviewing the arguments and the applied references, we
agree with Appellants that a skilled artisan would not have
combined Bachhuber ‘329 and Posner. The closest Posner comes to
the claimed invention is that it relates to an anti-theft system.
The module of Posner may be easily installed in an automobile by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007