Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 23
Application No. 09/834,499
is directed to a new combination of elements and that none of the
prior art is directed to an override switch in a vehicle theft
prevention system. We note at the outset that as we indicated,
supra, Flanagan is directed to a system, including an override
switch, for preventing engine starting in an automobile. From
appellant’s admission that the use of an indicator for indicating
when a switch is activated and the disclosure of Dodd of
providing an indicator for an override switch for a vehicle, we
agree with the examiner, for the reasons set forth in the answer,
that the prior art would have suggested to an artisan the
language of claim 13. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 13
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to the rejection of claims 14 and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iijima in view of
Takagi and further inn view of Bryant. We select claim 14 as
representative of the group. The examiner (answer, pages 17 and
18) relies upon Bryant for the placement of the antenna within
the passenger compartment of the vehicle. Appellant’s position
(brief, page 22) that Bryant is directed to cellular telephony
and is not in the same field of endeavor as the invention. It is
argued (brief, page 23) that “[m]oreover, no convincing line of
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007