Appeal No. 96-1657
Application 07/819,345
moreover are shown by Henderson [answer, page 5]. Appellants
have not presented any specifics as to why these features are
not well known and conventional. In fact, Appellants only
contend that “the mere existence of a feature in the prior art
does not render obvious all combinations including that
feature.” [brief, page 11]. Regarding claim 22, the only
claim in this group addressed individually by Appellants,
Appellants state that Henderson does not show the feature
added by this claim. We disagree. Henderson shows key 14 to
update the lockout list [column 20, line 54 to column 21, line
7], and the keys on the key pad 14 can serve as the contacts
through which new authorization data can be provided. We find
claims 23 and 24 are met by the same cite of Henderson. The
feature claimed in claim 25 is shown by figure 13 of
Henderson. The battery in Motorola can be considered to power
the lock mechanism, claim 26. With respect to claim 27,
Henderson shows such access system for a real estate lockbox.
In the absence of any specific rebuttal to the Examiner’s
position on these claims, the obviousness rejection of claims
22 through 27 over Motorola and Henderson is justified.
-11-
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007