Appeal No. 95-0143
Application 07/865,849
means for comparing access data received from said
communication channel and stored in said access memory, and
means for releasing said lock to allow access by a holder of
said electronic key if the access data received from said
electronic key matches the access data received over said
communication channel and stored in said access memory; and
remote data processor means for sending data to said
microprocessor means over said communication channel.
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Clarkson et al. (Clarkson) 4,789,859 Dec. 6, 1988
Cargile et al. (Cargile) 4,819,267 Apr. 4, 1989
Clark et al. (Clark) 4,829,296 May 9, 1989
Barrett et al. (Barrett) 4,887,292 Dec. 12, 1989
Pogue et al. (Pogue) 5,144,667 Sep. 1, 1992
Todd WO 89/02507 Mar. 23, 1989
Claims 1 through 6 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Pogue and Clark. Claim 7 stands
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pogue,
Clark and Barrett. Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Pogue, Clark and Cargile. Claim 10 is
rejected under the judicially created doctrine of obviousness-
type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S.
Patent No. 5,140,317. Claim 10 also stands rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Clark and Todd. Claims
11 and 13 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pogue. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007