Appeal No. 95-0143
Application 07/865,849
review of Barrett, we find that Barrett teaches in column 7,
lines 27-55, that the lock includes a modem 74 as shown in Figure
18b as recited in Appellants’ claim 18. Therefore, we will
sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§§ 102 and 103.
Appellants argue that neither Barrett nor Clark suggest
using the lock in a public telephone set as recited in
Appellants’ claim 19. However, Clark teaches in column 1, lines
5-11, applications for electronic locks which include pay
telephones. Therefore, we find that from this suggestion found
in Clark, it would have been obvious to those skilled in the art
to use the Barrett electronic lock as a lock for a public
telephone set. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claim 19.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner
rejecting claims 10 and 17 through 20 is affirmed; however, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1 through 9 and 11
through 16 is reversed.
20
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007