Appeal 2006-2295
Application 10/215,274
limitations would not be taught or suggested by the applied prior art
references. In particular, Appellants contend (Br. 4-7; Reply Br. 1-2) that, in
contrast to the claimed invention, neither Talty nor Lambropoulos discloses
the determination of which of a plurality of vehicle closures are to be opened
based on the change in length of the duration of a received input signal as
claimed.
After reviewing the disclosures of Talty and Lambropoulos in light of
the arguments of record, we are in general agreement with Appellants’
position as stated in the Briefs. With respect to Talty, the Examiner has
correctly recognized (Answer 3) that, while Talty provides a disclosure of
the claimed feature of detecting the angular position of an authorization
device relative to a receiver located on the vehicle, there is no disclosure of
operating a closure dependent upon the duration length of a received input
signal.
We also find no disclosure in Lambropoulos that would overcome the
deficiencies of Talty in disclosing the specific claimed signal duration
dependent vehicle closure operation. Our interpretation of the disclosure of
Lambropoulos coincides with that of Appellants, i.e., while Lambropoulos
provides for the unlocking of additional vehicle closures depending on the
length of time unlock switch 14 is activated, the duration of the switch
activation beyond a predetermined time results in the generation of an
additional signal which functions to unlock additional closures.
As described by Lambropoulos (col. 9, ll.9-15),
[w]hen switch 14 is depressed, a single data transmission
is initiated. This unlocks only the driver’s door of the
vehicle. Microprocessor 10 continues to interrogate
switch 14 for a short time, such as 2.5 seconds. If the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013