Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 15
Application No. 09/834,499
to be non-obvious over the prior art.
From our review of Tallman, who provides, inter alia, theft
prevention for an automobile, and discloses data port 261 for
connection to an external programming device for entering a
unique identification code (col. 6, lines 40-63), we agree with
the examiner, for the reasons set forth in the answer, that the
teachings of Iijima, Takagi and Tallman would have suggested to
an artisan the invention set forth in claim 5. From the lack of
any specific arguments by appellant with respect to these claims,
we are not convinced of any error on the part of the examiner
with respect to the rejection of claims 5 and 16. Accordingly,
the rejection of claims 5 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of Takagi and
Bethards. The examiner’s position (answer, pages 9 and 10) is
that Iijima and Takagi do not disclose that the input is an
antenna configured for radio frequency (RF) communication with an
external programming device, which provides the predetermined
authorized access code.
To overcome this deficiency of Iijima and Takagi, the
examiner turns to Bethards for a teaching of this feature.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007