Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 20
Application No. 09/834,499
inclusion of an override switch within a vehicle theft protection
system. It is asserted (id.) that there appears to be little
reasoning to support the examiner’s position and that the
examiner has used the claim as a guide to pick and choose
elements and concepts from the prior art.
From our review of Flanagan, we find that the reference is
directed to an override for an interlock system that will disable
the ignition system and prevent operation of the automobile (col.
1, lines 22-26 and 32-34 and col. 3, lines 39-60). Although the
system of Flanagan provides a single cycle override, the override
can be repeated as necessary, and is therefore continuously
enabled. We are not persuaded by appellant’s assertion that the
invention is directed to a new combination of elements because
the issue is whether the combination was suggested by the prior
art. In addition, from the disclosure of the latch override of
Flanagan for use in preventing the engine from being started, we
agree with the examiner that the teachings of the prior art would
have suggested to an artisan the language of claim 11. From the
disclosure of Flanagan, we are not persuaded that the examiner is
merely picking and choosing elements from the prior art to arrive
at appellant’s invention, as the prior art suggests the language
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007