Appeal 2006-2295
Application 10/215,274
the Examiner has relied upon Seubert, rather than Lambropoulos, in
combination with Talty to address this feature.
We find from our review of Seubert, however, that Seubert suffers
from the same deficiencies as we discussed with respect to Lambropoulos.
As with Lambropoulos, activation of switch 2 in the remote control unit of
Seubert for longer than a predetermined time, will result in additional
vehicle doors being locked or unlocked. This additional vehicle door
operation, however, is not based on the duration of the length of a signal
received by a vehicle receiver as claimed but, rather, is a result of different
coded signals being generated dependent on the duration of the operation of
switch 2.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection, based on the combination of Talty and Seubert, of independent
claim 22, we note that, while we found Appellants’ arguments to be
persuasive with the respect to the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of
claims 1-21, we reach the opposite conclusion with respect to the rejection
of claim 22 and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of this claim.
Independent claim 22 differs from previously discussed independent claims
1, 13, and 21 by not including the feature of determining vehicle door
operation based on received signal duration but, rather, setting forth the
detection of different authorization levels for the authorization device
resulting in the locking or unlocking of different vehicle doors.
As we mentioned earlier with respect to our discussion of claim 21,
the remote control device of Seubert functions to lock and/or unlock
different vehicle doors dependent on the generation of different coded
signals, which generation is dependent upon the duration of the operation of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013