Appeal No. 1997-1632 Page 19
Application No. 08/138,555
devices – there are no wires to disconnect and reconnect – such a substitution would
have facilitated repositioning Roland’s subcontrollers and terminal controllers, which
would have advanced the primary reference’s goal of “provid[ing] a complete facility
security system that is flexible. . . .” Col. 1, ll. 20-21. Consequently, we find that the
prior art as a whole would have suggested combining teachings of the references.
Furthermore, Tolson teaches a RF receiver. Specifically, when using a RF
signal, “suitable transmitter transducer and receiver transducer R are inserted in the
energy path as shown in FIGURE 7.” Col. 3, ll. 57-59 (emphasis added). Therefore,
we affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 80.
Fourth, implying that neither Rode nor Tolson teaches nor would have suggested
the limitations of claim 81, the examiner asserts, “it would have been obvious to change
the codes in the lock and the key to provide additional security since Clark here shows
that the key can stores a list of unlocking codes to permit the key to open a plurality of
locks.” (Paper No. 46 at 18.) The appellants argue, "Clark's key provides no means to
reprogram the lock with which it is engaged. Similarly, neither Mauch [sic] nor Tolson
suggests such a feature." (Paper No. 47 at 21.)
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007