Appeal No. 96-1657
Application 07/819,345
explained how the addition of Henderson and Marian meets these
limitations. Therefore, we conclude that the rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Ryoichi, Marian and
Henderson is reversed. Since claims 2 through 8 and claims 28
through 33 contain at least the same limitations, being
dependent on claim 1, their rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Ryoichi, Marian and Henderson is also reversed.
With respect to the independent claim 9, we have
considered the Examiner’s position [answer, pages 8 to 9] and
Appellants’ corresponding arguments [brief, pages 25 to 27].
We conclude that the combination of Ryoichi, Marian and
Henderson does not meet the limitations: “verifying access
qualifications of the user to the central station” [claim 9,
line 7]; and “transmitting to the key a radio enabling signal
so as to enable the key to access the lock” [claim 9, lines 8
to 9]. Therefore, the obviousness rejection of claim 9 and
its dependent claims, 10 to 15 and 41 to 47, over Ryoichi,
Marian and Henderson is reversed.
Regarding the independent claim 17, we have studied
Examiner’s rejection and arguments [answer, pages 7 to 8] and
Appellants’ corresponding rebuttal [brief, pages 30 to 31].
-19-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007