Appeal No. 2004-1598
Application No. 09/250,878
module 22 of Posner can be pluggably and releasably installed in
a vehicle does not suggest that such coded module, formed in a
fixed wiring, be substituted for a control unit in Bachhuber ‘329
and be queried for its identification by the central unit during
the authentication operation, as recited in claim 1.
Based on our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness because the
necessary teachings and suggestions for using the module of
Posner as one of the control units of Bachhuber ‘329, are not
shown. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of independent claim 1, as well as claim 2 dependent
thereon, over Bachhuber ‘329 and Posner.
With respect to the rejection of claims 3 and 5-7, the
Examiner further relies on Bachhuber ‘490 for teaching the
central control unit being an antenna (answer, page 5). We also
note that independent claim 3, similar to claim 1, recites the
pluggable control unit. However, Bachhuber ‘490 does not teach
an electronically coded plug as one of the control units and
fails to overcome the deficiencies of the combination of the
references as discussed above. Therefore, we do not sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claims 3 and 5-7 over
Bachhuber ‘329, Posner and Bachhuber ‘490.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007