Appeal No. 96-1657
Application 07/819,345
One of the limitations of claim 17 is: “storing data relating
to the lock operation in a memory, the data indicating at
least the date the lock was operated.” [Claim 17, lines 10 to
11]. Even though Henderson individually shows the storing of
a log of data relating the use of the lock to access the
secure area [figure 13], the Examiner has not shown how this
feature of Henderson can be combined with Ryoichi. Similarly,
the Examiner does not explain how Marian’s system with the
capability of generating a single paging signal carrying
plural control signals can be combined with Ryoichi to meet
the limitation: “providing data signals corresponding to the
received signal tones to the processing circuitry associated
with the access control device;” [claim 17, lines 7 to 8].
Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 17
and its dependent claims, 18 to 21 and 34 to 40, over Ryoichi,
Marian and Henderson.
In summary, we have affirmed the Examiner regarding the
rejection of claims 1 through 5, and 28 through 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 over White, and reversed with respect to claims 6
through 8, 32 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over White. We
have also affirmed the Examiner with respect to claims 16 and
-20-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007