Appeal No. 1997-1632 Page 16
Application No. 08/138,555
Second, the examiner asserts, “[c]laims 80,81 [sic] are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Rhode [sic] in view of Tolson as appliedand [sic]
further in view of Clark '296.” (Paper No. 46 at 17.) The appellants argue, "[c]laim 80
specifies that characteristics of the key can be updated remotely. Rode does not teach
or even suggest this feature." (Paper No. 47 at 21.)
As mentioned regarding the obviousness-type double patenting rejections, claim
80 merely requires programming a key remotely by transferring data thereto. The
claim, however, does not specify a point of reference for the remoteness. We must
give the remoteness its broadest reasonable construction.
For its part, Rode teaches reprogramming “a radio frequency-coupled proximity
key 500. . . .” Col. 3, ll. 61-62. Specifically, “[t]he key 500 is reprogrammed either in the
factory or in the local readers. . . .” Col. 4, ll. 26-27. Give the term “remote” its broadest
reasonable construction, the reference’s reprogramming in the local readers is done
remote from the factory. Conversely, its reprogramming in the factory is done remote
from the local readers.
Third, the examiner asserts, “Tolson teaches it would have been obvious to
replace any wired communication with a wireless RF communication.” (Paper No. 46
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007