Appeal No. 96-1657
Application 07/819,345
column 12, line 9, teaches that a signal is sent to the lock
[receiving station] to program a specific time window for
access to the secure area. Therefore, the obviousness
rejection of claims 28 through 31 over White is sustained.
Regarding claims 32 and 33, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s position [answer, pages 6 and 11 to 14] and the
Appellants' corresponding arguments [brief, pages 22 and 23].
The Examiner has not identified any portions of White, or
given any specific arguments, for his position and
consequently Appellants have not made any factual arguments.
We also do not find any support in White for the Examiner’s
position. Consequently, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claims 32 and 33 over White.
C. Rejection of claims 1 through 15, claims 17 through 21 and
claims 28 through 47 over Ryoichi, Marian and Henderson
At the outset, we agree with Appellants that these three
references are not properly combinable [brief, page 8 and
reply brief, pages 4, 5, 8 to 10]. The Examiner’s contention
to the contrary is not convincing [answer, page 14]. Ryoichi
relates to an automatic locking system for an automobile, only
-16-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007