Appeal No. 95-0143
Application 07/865,849
security as well as requiring much more power consumption for the
key. Furthermore, we do not agree with the Examiner that those
skilled in the art would have found it desirable to use the Clark
lock ID codes and lock access codes in the Pogue system because
this will allow the ability to operate more than one lock. As
pointed out above, the Pogue security system allows for one key
to operate an unlimited number of locks. See Pogue, column 4,
lines 30-33. In addition, the modification would have eliminated
the advantages of the Pogue security system by providing a less
secure system that requires more power consumption. Therefore,
we find that it would not have been obvious to one skilled in the
art to modify the Pogue security system by providing the Clark
lock IDs and access code system to obtained Appellant’s invention
as recited in claims 1 through 6, and 8.
We will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 6 and 8. In addition, we note that the Examiner used the
same reasoning in the rejections of claims 7 and 9. Therefore,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 7 and 9
as well.
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. Appellants argue that a
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007