Appeal 2007-0981
Application 10/803,434
teaching of Pilney is cumulative to what Kniffin already discloses and,
accordingly, Pilney is not needed for a proper rejection of these claims. As
described at column 3, lines 37-40 of Kniffin, each lock receiver in a locking
system can be targeted by time division multiplexing “wherein each receiver
awakens in staggered brief intervals to listen for messages.”
As a final commentary, we note that, as mentioned earlier, the
Examiner has indicated (Answer 2) that claims 18-26 have been allowed.
We find nothing on the record before us, however, which provides any
reasons as to why these claims were allowed. We make the observation that
independent claim 18 includes the feature of a plurality of central wireless
communicators that are coupled to the central access controller. This feature
is also present in dependent claim 14, a claim to which the Examiner applied
the MacLellan reference in combination with Kniffin and Pinzon to address
this feature. If the Examiner remains of the position that claims 18-26
should be allowed, a “Reasons for Allowance” should be included to ensure
completeness of the record.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have sustained the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of all of the claims on appeal. Therefore, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1-7, 10-16, and 18-29 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(effective
September 13, 2004).
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013