Appeal 2006-0342
Application 09/944,893
See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 590, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991). Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims
as being unpatentable over Pogue in view of Daniels, and further in view of
Wright for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent
claim 1.
Claims 1-7, 9-12, and 15
We consider next the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7, 9-12, and 15
as being unpatentable over Pogue in view of Tennenhouse. Since
Appellants’ arguments with respect to this rejection have treated these
claims as a single group which stand or fall together, we will select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim for this rejection because it
is the broadest independent claim. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).
In response to the new grounds of rejection, Appellants argue the
Examiner has failed to establish a teaching, suggestion, or motivation that
would lead an artisan to use an active network in a vehicle and, further, to
encrypt data in a vehicle. Appellants restate their argument that the
Examiner has impermissibly relied upon hindsight in formulating the
rejection (Reply Br. 3-4).
With respect to this rejection, we find the cited Tennenhouse
reference (included as an Appendix to the Brief) explicitly teaches an active
network (See ¶3, “Active Networks”). We also find Appellants have
specifically admitted in the Brief that such active networks are known in the
art:
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013