Appeal No. 2000-2194
Application No. 08/705,843
references in light of the arguments of record, we are in agreement
with Appellants’ position as stated in the Briefs.
Initially, we find that the Examiner has not established how
and in what manner the skilled artisan would have been motivated
and found it obvious to modify Hyatt with Gelhard and Larson. In
attempting to cure the deficiencies of the disclosure of Hyatt,
which does not include principal electronic components in the key
head as presently claimed, the Examiner adds Gelhard as providing a
disclosure of disposing key electronics in a key head. As pointed
out by Appellants (Brief, page 9; Reply Brief, page 6), however, no
decision making operations by the key head microprocessor are
disclosed by Gelhard. Further, while Larson discloses a “key”
structure which functions to operate a real estate lock box, such
disclosed “key” structure is not a mechanical key as defined by
Appellants. In our opinion, the solutions to solving a key-lock
security and authorization problem by Hyatt, Gelhard, and Larson
are so opposite in approach that any attempt to combine them could
only come from Appellants’ own disclosure and not from any teaching
or suggestion in the references themselves.
We have also reviewed the Seckinger and Clarkson references
added to the proposed combination by the Examiner as providing
teachings of, respectively, a key head located battery and a lock
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007