Appeal 2007-0958
Application 10/807,935
Regarding Claim 26
Appellants contend that “claims 26 and 35 require the steps of
providing a non-zero power output to unlock a device, providing a lower
non-zero power output to the device and transitioning from the non-zero
power output to the lower non-zero power output” (Reply Br. 3) and “the
prior art of record also fails to teach or suggest, among other things: …a
two-current solenoid driver . . . .” (Br. 9). We agree.
It is our view that the Examiner fails to show where the above noted
elements appear in the cited combination of prior art references.
Specifically, it is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the evidence relied upon and the level of skill in the particular art would
not have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the invention as set
forth in claims 26 and 35. Accordingly, we reverse.
Therefore, we will not sustain and will instead reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 26 and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the same reasons as
set forth above.
Regarding Claims 27 and 30
Appellants contend that “the references do not indicate…the necessity
of writing the access code into a memory in response to a write signal
received through a communication port as set forth in claims 27 and 36”
(Reply Br. 4) . Appellants further contend that “the references do not
indicate . . . the necessity of transmitting the access code through a
communication port in response to a read signal as set forth in claims 30 and
39” (Reply Br. 4) and “the prior art of record also fails to teach or suggest,
16
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013