Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 17
Application No. 09/834,499
the system of Iijima rewritable through a rewriting tool that
uses RF communications, in light of the teachings of the applied
prior art. Although we have relied upon the references in a
manner that is not identical to how the references were applied
by the examiner, we find that the prior art would have suggested
to an artisan the language of claim 6. Accordingly, the
rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 7 and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of
Takagi and Strohbeck. No specific arguments have been presented
for these claims by appellant. Accordingly, we select claim 7 as
being representative of the group. Claim 7 relates to the system
being actuated by more than one transponder, where there is a
second transponder and a second identification code that is
received by the controller, for actuating the relay. The
examiner (answer, pages 10, 11, 19 and 20) relies upon Strohbeck
for this feature.
From our review of Strohbeck, we find that this reference is
directed to a keyless access and/or drive authorization system
that includes a plurality of transponders (col. 1, lines 28-34
and 50-55; and col. 3, line 58 through col. 4, line 4). From the
disclosure of Strohbeck, we agree with the examiner, for the
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007