Appeal No. 95-0143
Application 07/865,849
devices. However, the Examiner has not pointed to any teachings
or suggestions by Pogue to provide these means. Furthermore,
upon a careful review of Pogue, we fail to find that Pogue
teaches or suggests these means. Therefore, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11 through 15.
Claim 16 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Clark. Appellants argue on pages 21-22 of the
brief that Clark fails to disclose key means comprising a hand
held computer and interface module detachably coupled to the hand
held computer for interfacing the computer with the lock. We
agree and thereby we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 16.
Claims 17, 18 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as
being anticipated by Barrett. Claims 17 through 19 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Barrett
and Clark. Appellants argue on page 23 that Barrett fails to
disclose a lock wherein a remote data processor means sends data
including access data to a data communication terminal of a
microprocessor means of the lock over a communication channel.
18
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007