Appeal No. 95-0143
Application 07/865,849
power the lock from the key as taught by Clark. Thus, we do not
find that Todd teaches away from the Clark teachings.
We fail to find that Appellants have presented any arguments
that have persuaded us that those skilled in the art would not
have reasons to modify Todd by providing the power to the lock
from a power supply in the key as taught by Clark. Therefore,
for the reasons above, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 10 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 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pogue and
Clarkson. Appellants argue on page 19 of the brief that Pogue
fails to teach or suggest a means for replacing a stored code
number with a modified code number when an input code number
matches a modified code number, key means for storing a
predetermined algorithm that is also stored in the controller
means of the lock mechanism and means for operating the lock
mechanism when enabled by controller means in the lock as recited
in claim 11. In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner
argues on page 14 of the answer that Pogue suggests that any
known means can be used to ensure security when programming the
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007