Appeal No. 1998-0183 Application No. 08/413,040 First of all, we note that Appellants have not specifically argued claim 14. The limitations argued above regarding independent claims 1 and 8 are not contained in claim 14 since it depends on claim 12. The Examiner asserts (answer, page 5) that “[r]e claims 1, 8, and 14, Goss does not disclose the use of a keypad. Morgan et al. discloses [sic] . . . a keypad for transmitting key information to its operating electronics, . . . . The use of such a keypad [of Morgan] in Goss in order to provide this extra security against unauthorized use would be an expedient obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.” We conclude that the Examiner has established a prima facie case to reject claim 14. We do not agree with Appellants (brief, pages 10 to 14) that there is no motivation to combine. We think that Appellants’ view in this respect is misplaced. There does not have to be a specific teaching in the prior art for the suggested combination. It is well established that while there must be some teaching, reason, suggestion, or motivation to combine existing elements to produce the claimed device, it is not necessary that the cited references or prior art specifically suggest making the 11Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007