Ex parte HYATT et al. - Page 4




          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