Appeal 2007-1535
Application 10/626,969
addition, the Examiner relies on Nykerk for teaching the “desirability in a
vehicle security system of interfacing security alarm sensing data to data bus
64” which, according to the Examiner, extends “throughout the vehicle”
giving the limitation its broadest reasonable interpretation (Answer 4-5).
The Examiner asserts that because the data buses in both Suman and Nykerk
communicate with their respective wiring harnesses, the wiring harnesses
effectively act as a portion of the bus (Answer 5).
In addition, the Examiner cites a fourth reference, Boreham, for
teaching the desirability in a vehicle alarm system that, among other things,
can address devices other than a siren unit on a single serial data bus (Id.).
The Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to connect a prealarm
warning system disclosed by Hwang ‘407 over a vehicle data bus suggested
by either Suman or Nykerk and further use addressing over the data bus and
allow a bus to extend further throughout the vehicle as suggested by
Boreham to, among other things, utilize existing vehicle wiring (Answer 5-
6).
Appellant argues that the secondary references to Suman and Nykerk
teach away from using a data communications bus that extends throughout
the vehicle and carrying data and address information as claimed.
First, Appellant notes that the data bus 111 in Suman does not extend
throughout the vehicle as claimed, but rather is connected to various inputs
and the microcontroller on driver circuit 75. Appellant emphasizes,
however, that this driver circuit is confined within a housing 63 attached to
the vehicle roof. That is, the data bus in Suman is said to extend within the
driver circuit -- not throughout the vehicle (Br. 8; Reply Br. 8). With regard
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013