Ex parte HYATT et al. - Page 12

          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              


Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007