Appeal No. 96-1657
Application 07/819,345
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed.
Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, in evaluating such references it
is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings
of the references but also the inferences which one skilled in
the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
Motorola contemplates the use of the disclosed garage
door opener in business, or even an opener for a door on
vehicles such as delivery trucks. Certainly, it would have
been desirable to permit only the authorized person to access
such a door, and, in a business setting, the list of
authorized persons to access the door would, of necessity,
change continuously. We, therefore, find that the combination
of Motorola and Henderson is justified and the obviousness
rejection of claim 16 over Motorola and Henderson is proper.
With respect to the dependent claims 22 to 27, the
Examiner has stated that they contain features which are well
known and conventional in the art of access control, and
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007