Appeal 2007-1535
Application 10/626,969
teaching, the skilled artisan would have ample reason to extend the data bus
in Boreham to facilitate communication with electrical devices located at the
front and rear of the vehicle.
The claims also differ from Boreham in calling for a pre-warning
signal. But Nykerk discloses an alarm system that issues a preliminary
warning before sounding an alarm (Nykerk, col. 1, ll. 19-29; col. 2, l. 64 -
col. 3, l. 2). To this end, a self-contained alarm system 55 (i.e., the
“INVISIBEAM” system) detects the presence of an intruder in a zone of
protection. In response to such detection, a preliminary warning vocally
informs the user that a protected region has been entered (i.e., a pre-warning
signal). The intruder is then given a predetermined time to move out of the
protected area before sounding the alarm (i.e., alarm signal) (Nykerk, col. 3,
ll. 49-67; col. 6, l. 48 - col. 7, l. 10). Also, the INVISBEAM system can be
used with other conventional alarm systems (Nykerk, col. 7, ll. 32-63).
In view of Nykerk, it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at
the time of the invention to provide a pre-warning signal in conjunction with
the system of Boreham so that the intruder was warned prior to issuing the
alarm thus encouraging the intruder to leave prior to sounding the alarm.
DECISION
We have reversed the Examiner’s rejection for all claims on appeal.
However, we have entered new grounds of rejection under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b) for independent claims 1, 12, 20, 25, 30, and 37. Although we
decline to reject every claim under our discretionary authority under 37
C.F.R. 41.50(b), we emphasize that our decision does not mean the
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013