Appeal No. 2005-2762 Παγε 4
Application No. 09/859,973
with the security code stored in the memory 29 of the control
unit 22, the authorized user is operating the vehicle, none
[sic] alarm condition is indicated, then the controller 22
selectively operates the ignition switch 34 with the passive
operator identification device 24 which reads “selectively
operating the engine starter interrupt device” as claimed
[supplemental answer, page 3].
The flaw in the examiner’s position, as aptly pointed out by the appellant on page
3 of the second reply brief, is that “[n]owhere does Gioia teach that the theft control unit
22 selectively operates any of the components of the passive operator identification
device 24" (which includes lock switch 34, key 30, and key transponder 32). As
explained in columns 3 and 4 of Gioia, when the key 30, which contains a transponder
32, is coupled to the lock switch 34 and the lock switch is in the “on” position, the
transponder 32 is energized to transmit the security code associated with the key to the
theft control unit 22. The theft control unit 22 then compares the security code received
from the transponder to the security code stored in memory 29 of the theft control unit
22. If the received security code is not equal to the security code stored in memory 29,
an unauthorized operator identification flag is set. The theft control unit 22
communicates with the electronic engine controller 36 which can disable the engine 42.
It is clear from the above disclosure that the passive operator identification
device 24 controls the theft control unit, by transmitting the security code stored in the
transponder of the key. Contrary to the examiner’s contention, however, Gioia provides
absolutely no disclosure that the theft control unit 22 provides any feedback to the lock
switch 34, or to any other component of the passive operator identification device 24, or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007