Appeal No. 2006-1625
Application No. 09/915,033
the assignment of the code to the transmitter. Thus, two sequentially assigned
codes are not themselves sequential. Moreover, each code is guaranteed to be
unique since the assignment time will never repeat.
Representative claim 1 is reproduced as follows:
1. A method of assigning an identification code to a remote entry
transmitter comprising the steps of:
1) providing a number which varies by the time a code is assigned
relative to other codes, and ensuring that the codes are non-sequential
for codes assigned sequentially, said code also being indicative of a
date and time associated with the assignment of said code; and
2) storing said code in a remote entry transmitter as a remote entry
transmitter identification code.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Prosan et al. (Prosan) 4,525,805 Jun. 25, 1985
Kurosu et al. (Kurosu) 4,683,540 Jul. 28, 1987
Lambropoulous et al. 4,881,148 Nov. 14, 1989
(Lambropoulous)
Guerin et al. (Guerin) 6,380,843 Apr. 30, 2002
(filed May 13, 1999)
The following rejections are on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1, 2, and 6-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lambropoulous in view of Prosan and further in view of
Guerin.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007