Appeal No. 2005-2762 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/859,973
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. For the reasons
which follow, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection.
This application was remanded to the examiner by a panel of Administrative
Patent Judges Irwin Charles Cohen, Lawrence J. Staab and Jennifer D. Bahr in a
decision mailed November 10, 2004 to obtain the examiner’s finding “as to how the
noted feature of a controller selectively operating an engine starter interrupt device in
each of claims 1, 12, and 20 reads on the Gioia teaching” (remand, page 2). Judges
Cohen and Staab have subsequently retired. Accordingly, with further explanation from
the examiner in the supplemental answer and response by the appellant in the second
reply brief, this appeal is now before Judges Frankfort, Nase and Bahr.
Each of appellant’s independent claims 1, 12 and 20 calls for a controller
switching between an armed mode and a disarmed mode based upon operation of the
engine starter interrupt device and said controller also selectively operating the engine
starter interrupt device. According to the examiner (supplemental answer, page 3), the
control unit 22 of Gioia responds to the claimed controller and the passive operator
identification device 24 of Gioia responds to the claimed engine starter interrupt device.
The examiner’s position is as follows:
When the key 30 is inserted to the lock switch 34, the
transponder 32 is energized to transmit the security code
associated with the key 30 to the theft control unit 22. If the
transmitted security code is not equal to the security code
stored in the memory 29 of the control unit 22, the vehicle is
under abnormal condition, and then an alarm condition is
indicated; the security system 12 disables the engine 42. In
a condition that the transmitted security code is matched
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007