Appeal No. 96-1657
Application 07/819,345
signal and another signal regarding the information about the
receiving station [the lock] are sent to the central station,
which verifies if that user has an authorized access to the
lock. [White, column 2, lines 2 to 66]. If that validation
fails, the user experiences a lockout, otherwise the user is
allowed access. As for the second substep, i.e., said
identifying not requiring the user be in “proximity with the
lock”, the clause “proximity with the lock” is a relative term
and White contemplates that transmitter units T1 through T256
[figure 1] periodically communicate ... to remote [not
proximate] receiver stations R1 through R2564. [Column 5,
lines 20 to 23].
Appellants further argue that failure of White to use
radio signals to communicate between the transmitters and the
receiving stations is an indication that White teaches away
from the invention of claim 1. [Brief, page 14]. We agree
with the Examiner in that even though White does not use radio
communication between the transmitters and the receiving
stations, it does clearly teach that remote receiver stations
can communicate with control unit C1 over wire, cable or by
radio transmission. [Column 5, lines 38 to 40]. We find that
-13-
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007