Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 19
Application No. 09/834,499
specific arguments by appellant, we are not convinced of any
error on the part of the examiner. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claim 11, rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of
Takagi and further in view of Weber and Flanagan. Claim 11,
which depends from claim 10, is directed to an override switch in
communication with an input of the latching relay wherein
activation of the override switch causes the latching relay to be
latched to continuously enable the ignition system. The examiner
(answer, pages 14 and 15) turns to Flanagan for a teaching of “an
override switch (10)(i.e. a magnetic relay acts as an override
switch) in communication with an input of said latching relay
wherein activation of said override swtich (10) causes said
latching relay (26)(i.e. a latching switch) to be latched to
continuously enable said ignition system (col. 3 lines 39-66; see
Figure 1) in order to permit the automobile to start.”
Appellant’s position (brief, pages 19 and 20) is that appellant
does not dispute that override switches and relays are known, but
asserts that claim 11 is directed to a new combination of
elements, and that the prior art does not teach or suggest the
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007