Appeal No. 1997-1632 Page 20
Application No. 08/138,555
Claim 81 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "the memory has
stored therein characterization instructions for a lock, and in which the communications
port and microprocessor comprise means for transferring said instructions to a lock."
Accordingly, the claim requires programing a lock with a key.
The examiner fails to show that Clark ‘296's storage of unlocking codes to permit
a key to open locks teaches or would have suggested programing any of the locks with
the key. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 81.
Fifth, implying that neither Rode, Tolson, nor Clark ‘296 teaches nor would have
suggested the limitations of claim 82, the examiner asserts, “Bar-on et al teaches
disabling the receiver during certain periods to save the battery's power.” (Paper
No. 46 at 19.) The appellants argue, "[t]he examiner did not particularly consider the
limitations of claim 82, and thus proposed no rationale why an artisan would have
arrived at the claimed combinations." (Paper No. 47 at 22.)
Claim 82 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "the memory has
stored therein data corresponding to an expiration date for said key." The examiner
fails to allege, let alone show evidence, that the combination of references teach or
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007