Appeal No. 2000-2194
Application No. 08/705,843
cylinder located blocking device. We find nothing in these
references which would cure the previously discussed deficiencies
in Hyatt, Gelhard, and Larson.
Further, it is our opinion that even assuming, arguendo, that
proper motivation was established for the Examiner’s proposed
modification of references, the resulting combination would not
satisfy the requirements of appealed independent claims 1 and 5.
Each of claims 1 and 5 requires the powering of the lock’s blocking
device from the battery located in the key head, a feature lacking
in any of the applied prior art references. In Larson, the battery
is located in the bodily carried electronics pack, while Gelhard
has no disclosure of battery power at all. The Larson reference
does disclose a battery in the “key” element, but such battery does
not power the lock. Similarly, although Seckinger does teach a
battery in a key head, neither Seckinger nor Clarkson disclose the
supplying of power to a lock from a battery located in the key
head.
For all of the above reasons, it is our opinion that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
since all of the limitations of the appealed claims are not taught
or suggested by the applied prior art. Accordingly, the Examiner’s
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007