Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 18
Application No. 09/834,499
reasons cogently set forth on pages 11 and 12 of the answer, that
the teachings of Iijima, Takagi and Strohbeck would have
suggested to an artisan the invention set forth in claim 7. From
the lack of any specific arguments regarding this claim, we are
not convinced of any error on the part of the examiner.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is
affirmed. As claim 17 falls with claim 7, the rejection of claim
17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 10, which stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of
Takagi and further in view of Weber. The examiner’s position
(answer, pages 13 and 14) is that Iijima and Takagi do not
disclose that the ignition switch is activated by an ignition
key, and that a latching relay is actuated in response to a
momentary actuation of the relay when the controller detects the
identification code, wherein the latching relay is adapted to
remain latched until the ignition switch is deactivated. To
overcome this deficiency of Iijima and Takagi, the examiner turns
to Weber for a teaching of these features. Appellant presents no
specific arguments regarding this claim. From our review of
Weber, we will sustain the rejection of claim 10 for the reasons
set forth in the examiner’s answer. From the lack of any
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007