Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 11
Application No. 09/834,499
claimed elements that achieves a novel and unobvious benefit for
Appellant’s invention of cost savings when obtaining duplicate
keys.” While the claimed relationship may achieve benefits over
Iijima alone, the combined teachings of Iijima and Takagi, for
the reasons set forth, supra, would have suggested the claimed
invention to an artisan. In addition, we agree with appellant
(brief, page 10) that the specialized key of Iijima suffers from
the problems that appellant’s invention of claim 1 corrects.
However, we do not agree that if the transponder of Iijima were
separated from the key that the device of Iijima would be
unworkable for its intended purpose, because in Iijima, the
intended purpose is an anti-theft car protection system (col. 2,
line 8) and the system would still function if the transponder
were separated from the key. From all of the above, we are not
convinced of any error on the part of the examiner, and find that
the combined teachings of Iijima and Takagi would have suggested
to an artisan the invention of claim 1. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed. As
independent claims 15 and 18 have not been separately argued,
these claims fall with claim 1. In addition, claims 3, 4, 8 and
9 have not been separately argued and therefore fall with claim
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007