Appeal 2006-2295
Application 10/215,274
switch is released during this time, circuit 20 is
deactivated. If switch 14 is held for the 2.5 seconds,
transmitter T will transmit a second signal having a
function portion to unlock all doors of the vehicle.
In other words, in contrast to the claimed invention, additional doors are
unlocked in Lambropoulos not based on the length of the duration of any
received input signal as presently claimed but, rather, on the receipt of an
additional signal which is generated upon the operation of unlocking switch
14 beyond a predetermined time.
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that, since the
Lambropoulos reference does not overcome the deficiencies of Talty
discussed above, the references, even if combined, do not support the
obviousness rejection. We have also reviewed the Sydor and Honda
references applied by the Examiner to address the claimed features of
rotational position detection and plural directional receivers present in
several dependent claims. We find nothing, however, in the disclosures of
Sydor and Honda which overcome the innate deficiencies of Talty and
Lambropoulos discussed supra. We, therefore, do not sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 13, nor
of claims 2-12 and 14-20 dependent thereon.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s U.S.C § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 21 based on the combination of Talty and Seubert.
Although independent claim 21 is similar to previously discussed
independent claims 1 and 13 in including the feature of opening a vehicle
closure dependent on the length of the duration of a received input signal,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013