Appeal No. 96-1657
Application 07/819,345
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.” In
re Fitch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 773 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). “Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. V. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1087, 37 USPQ 2d at 1239 (Fed. Cir.
1995), citing W. L. Gore & Assocs., v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
at 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ at 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Thus, we find that the Examiner has not established a
case for combinability of these references. Nevertheless, we
review the arguments of the Examiner and Appellants in regard
to the rejection based on the combination of Ryoichi, Marian
and Henderson.
We start with the rejection of the independent claim 1.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s position [answer, pages 7 to
11] and Appellants’ corresponding arguments [brief, pages 23
to 27]. Ryoichi does not teach the limitations: “verifying
access qualifications of the user to the central station”
[claim 1, line 8]; and “identifying the presence of the user
at the lock” [claim 1, line 11]. The Examiner has not
-18-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007