Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 9
Application No. 09/834,499
of the Iijima system, and the obviousness is derived not from the
prior art, but only from appellant’s disclosure.
From our review of the record, including the arguments
presented by appellant and the examiner, we find that the issue
before us is whether it would have been obvious to have separated
the transponder of Iijima from the ignition key, in view of the
combined teachings of Iijima and Takagi. As acknowledged by both
appellant and the examiner, Iijima does not disclose this
feature. From our review of Takagi we find that although
Takagi’s embodiment of figure 1 shows the transponder 18a to be
located within key 18, Takagi discloses (col. 6, lines 66 and 67)
that “[t]he transponder 18a may be provided separately from the
key 18.” From this disclosure of Takagi, we find that the
reference discloses alternatives of having the transponder be
either within the key or separate from the key. From the
alternatives presented, we agree with the examiner that an
artisan would have been taught that these two alternatives are
interchangeable and that an artisan would either form the
transponder within the key, or form the transponder separate from
the key. We find the disclosure of Takagi to be an express
suggestion of making the transponder separate from the key, and
that the disclosure of Takagi would have taught an artisan that
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007