Appeal 2007-0958
Application 10/807,935
input code.” (Br. 10). However, Stamm is not being relied upon to disclose
an unlocking device that is periodically enabled. As noted above, the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness has been established with the
combination of Stengel and Lemelson to disclose such a feature. Stamm is
imported merely to show infrared signals. (FF 13).
Accordingly, we conclude that the subject matter of claims 5, 10, and
18 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given the
teachings of Stengel, Lemelson and Stamm.
Regarding Claim 34
Appellants contend that “claims 3[4] and 43 require periodically
enabling and disabling a low-battery detection circuit for measuring a
battery voltage” (Reply Br. 3) and “the prior art of record also fails to teach
or suggest, among other things: a low-battery indicator . . . .” (Br. 9). We
agree.
It is our view that the Examiner fails to show where the above noted
elements appear in the cited combination of prior art references.
Specifically, it is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would
not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention as set
forth in claims 34 and 43. Accordingly, we reverse.
Therefore, we will not sustain and will instead reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 34 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons as
set forth above.
15
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013