Appeal No. 95-4553 Page 5
Application No. 08/057,548
elapse between when the device is turned on and when
it is determined that no keys have been pressed.
(Paper No. 12 at 4-5, original emphasis.) The problem with
the examiner's finding is that Sander's tape bays are
ordinarily locked. (Abstract at 13-15; 6:50-59; 7:1-3; 8:51-
53.) Although Sander's rule 2, if read in isolation, might2
suggest that the bays are locked in response to a failure to
type in a password, that interpretation is inconsistent with
the teachings and purpose of Sander's invention. Sander wants
a device that is secure. (2:2-5.) The lock must be "enabled"
before the bolt of the lock is withdrawn. (6:50-59.) When
rule 2 is read in context, the preponderance of evidence
suggests that rule 2 means if no password is entered, the deck
remains disabled and locked. Thus, the portion of the
reference on which the examiner relies does not support his
position.
We find nothing else in Sander to teach the locking step
of claim 1. Sander does not explain how the decks are
initially locked or subsequently relocked. Although we must
assume that Sander inherently provides some method of locking
2 Although Appellant argues that Sander (16:60-65)
requires a key entry to lock the logger 10, this portion of
the reference is not germane since it does not refer to the
locking of the recorder housing.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007