Appeal 2007-1535
Application 10/626,969
to Nykerk, Appellant notes that the data bus 64 likewise does not extend
throughout the vehicle as claimed, but is confined within the control module
57 of the self-contained alarm system 55. According to Appellant, Nykerk’s
data bus extends throughout the control module -- not throughout the vehicle
(Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 3-5).
The Examiner argues that both Suman and Nykerk disclose a data bus
means that extend through a vehicle between points of connection (i.e.,
between the microprocessor 60 and interface 88 in Nykerk or between an
interface means and a conductor in Suman) (Answer 8).
Appellant further argues that there is no motivation to selectively
discard the hardwired connections of Hwang ‘407 and replace them with the
confined data bus suggested by either Nykerk or Suman (Br. 10-12). The
Examiner responds that the skilled artisan would have found it obvious to
use a conventional bus connected to a vehicle alarm system as suggested by
Suman, Nykerk, or Boreham in conjunction with an alarm system using a
prealarm function to, among other things, employ the well-known
advantages of data buses, such as bi-directional communication with various
components (Answer 8-9).
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 1
essentially for the reasons noted by Appellant. As shown in Figures 6A and
6B, Suman’s data bus 111 is part of driver circuit 75. Specifically, the data
bus 111 is connected between input interface circuitry 100 and
microcontroller 77 (Suman, Figs. 6A-6B). Driver circuit 75, however, is
mounted on a circuit board 71 in housing 63 -- a housing that is attached to
the vehicle roof (Suman, col. 4, ll. 21-23 and 52-54; Fig. 2). Therefore, the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013