Appeal No. 2006-3182
Application No. 09/883,963
interrogation signal to a remotely located transceiver. In response, the remote transceiver
transmits codes to the vehicle transceiver. If the transmitted codes match corresponding codes
pre-stored in the memory of the vehicle, the door of the vehicle is consequently locked or
unlocked. Next, we find that Bates teaches an interrogator that transmits modulated spread
spectrum signals to a remote intelligent communication device. The transmitted signals are then
demodulated through cross correlation with a version of the pseudo random carrier. The
demodulated codes are then compared with binary sequences pre-stored in a feedback shift
register that are shifted in response to various clock pulses. Additionally, we find that Ziemer
teaches a method for de-spreading a desired signal through the autocorrelation of an infinite
sequence of random binary digits. (pages 336-37).
It is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily recognized that the
combined teachings of Lambropoulos, Bates and Zeimer does not amount to the claimed
invention. The proposed combination would, at best, amount to a system for remotely locking
and unlocking a vehicle door by shifting binary sequences of transmitted pseudo codes to
thereby auto-correlate said transmitted codes with codes already stored in the vehicle register.
The ordinarily skilled artisan would have duly realized that the proposed combined teachings fall
short of time-shifting the codes less than required for an intermediate transmission means to
intercept and retransmit the response or interrogation signals. Consequently, we find error in the
Examiner’s stated position, which concludes that the combination Lambropoulos, Bates and
Ziemer teaches synchronizing a received pseudo code with a corresponding code already stored
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007