Appeal 2006-0342
Application 09/944,893
encryption in the manner suggested by the Examiner for the purpose of
realizing a more secure vehicle system. As an example, we find a more
secure vehicle network would have been suggested by the need to have a
secure means of locking and unlocking electronic vehicle door and trunk
latches. We further find Pogue’s use of “symbol encoder 126” (Fig. 12, col.
22, l. 35) and “symbol decoder 120” (Fig. 11, col. 18, l. 65, col. 24, ll. 1-2)
broadly suggests the use of some form of data encryption. Therefore, for at
least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude the Examiner has met the
burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we
will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1 as being
unpatentable over Pogue in view of Daniels. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii), we have decided the appeal with respect to claims 2-4, 6,
and 8-15 on the basis of the selected claim alone. Therefore, we will sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims as being unpatentable over Pogue in
view of Daniels for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to
representative claim 1.
Dependent claims 5 and 7
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5 and
7 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Pogue in view of Daniels, and
further in view of Wright.
We see no deficiencies with respect to Pogue as modified by Daniels,
as discussed supra. We note that Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments directed separately to the patentability of claims 5
and 7. In the absence of a separate argument with respect to the dependent
claims, those claims stand or fall with the representative independent claim.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013