Appeal No. 2006-0743 9
Reexamination Control No. 90/006,690
For the reasons set forth above, the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Gager, Federspiel and Marrazzo is affirmed. Since the
patentability of claims 2-4, 7, 10-20, 22 and 23 stands or falls with the patentability of claim 1,
the rejection of claims 2-4, 7, 10-20, 22 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Gager, Federspiel and Marrazzo is also affirmed.
2. Claim 8
Claim 8 reads as follows:
8. The detection system of claim 1 wherein said controller assembly
further includes a timer which allows said detection system to be operable for a
certain period of time.
The appellant argues that Gager does not teach or suggest a timer which allows the
detection system to be operable for a certain period of time. Brief at 6. We disagree.
According to the appellant’s specification (col. 5, lines 30-34):
[C]ontroller assembly 20 may include a timer which causes the system 10
(e.g. controller assembly 20) to be inoperable after a certain duration of time has
passed since the controller assembly 20 began operation.
The controller assembly is coupled to the horn, headlights and trunk release switch of the
vehicle. See col. 2, lines 61-67.
release in the system of Gager with an easily operable device such as a touch sensitive pad
comprising a capacitance sensor.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007