Appeal No. 96-1657
Application 07/819,345
being authorized by the central processor to grant access for
a time window [column 12, lines 2 to 9]. Claim 3 calls for a
timer being programmed by a radio signal to the lock for a
time window [of access]. We find that White, at column 11,
line 66 to column 12, line 9, sets up a time window for access
to the secure area, a timer being inherent to accomplish the
operation of such a time window. Claim 4 falls with claim 2
above. For claim 5, White does show the logging access data
to the operation of the lock mechanism [column 2, line 66 to
column 3, line 6]. Thus, we conclude that the obviousness
rejection of claims 2 through 5 over White is also
sustainable.
Regarding claims 6 to 8, we agree with Appellants [brief,
pages 19 to 21] that White does not show or suggest these
features. The Examiner has not pointed to any specific place
in White for these features and we have not found them in
White. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claims 6
through 8 is not sustainable.
With respect to claims 28, 29 and 31, they fall with
claim 1. Regarding claim 30, White, at column 11, line 67 to
-15-
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007