Appeal No. 2005-2762 Παγε 5
Application No. 09/859,973
otherwise controls the passive operator identification device 24 or any component
thereof. It follows that the examiner’s position that the theft control unit 22 and passive
operator identification device 24 respond, respectively, to the claimed controller and
engine starter interrupt device in appellant’s claims 1, 12 and 20 is not well taken.
Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 12 and 20, and claims 2-
11, 13-19 and 21-27 depending therefrom, cannot be sustained.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1-27 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
CHARLES E. FRANKFORT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JEFFREY V. NASE ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007