Appeal No. 2006-1625
Application No. 09/915,033
ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to (1) modify Lambropoulous to
provide a time-varying non-sequential code for easy and consistent
implementation, or (2) provide Prosan’s key with a transmitter as suggested by
Lambropoulous to allow remote entry control. The examiner further contends
that it would have been obvious to the skilled artisan at the time of the invention
to include the date and time as taught by Guerin in the Lambropoulous/Prosan
combination to detect falsification [answer, pages 4 and 5].
Appellants argue that Guerin is so unrelated to Lambropoulous that
Guerin’s use of time and date in a code has no benefit or purpose in
Lambropoulous’ system [brief, page 4]. According to appellants, Guerin uses
date codes for two purposes: (1) to customize each of several carriers (since the
carriers may be changed, updated, etc.), and (2) to calculate each key’s
expiration date [brief, pages 6 and 7; reply brief, pages 2 and 3]. Appellants note
that Guerin’s customization allows the lock to eliminate keys manufactured by a
carrier that is no longer authorized [brief, page 6; reply brief, page 2]. According
to appellants, no need exists in Lambropoulous to code multiple keys made by
multiple carriers since Lambropoulous has an individual code that is taught
directly to the vehicle [brief, page 6]. Appellants also note that the dates in
Guerin are not necessarily non-sequential, but rather several carriers could be
customized on the same day [brief, pages 6 and 7]. Moreover, according to
appellants, Guerin’s use of date codes to calculate the keys’ expiration dates has
no use in Lambropoulous’ system because, among other things, it would be
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007