Appeal 2007-2312
Application 09/681,815
interval if the customer does not verify that he or she continues to
possess the automobile.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Schilling 5,359,182 Oct. 25, 1994
Kanter 5,537,314 Jul. 16, 1996
Ovadia 5,612,527 Mar. 18, 1997
Bricaud 6,149,466 Nov.21, 2000
DeWolf 2002/0032626A1 Mar. 14, 2002
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. Claim 1-3, 6-10, 13-15, and 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kanter in view of DeWolf.
2. Claims 11, 12, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kanter in view of DeWolf in view of Schilling.
3. Claims 4 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kanter in view of DeWolf in view of Ovadia.
4. Claims 5 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Kanter in view of DeWolf in view of Bricaud.
ISSUE
The issue before us is whether Appellant has sustained its burden of showing
that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims on appeal as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Kanter in view of DeWolf. More specifically,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013