Appeal No. 1997-1632 Page 21
Application No. 08/138,555
would have suggested storing data corresponding to an expiration date of a key in a
memory of the key. Therefore, we reverse the obviousness rejection of claim 82.
Sixth, implying that neither Rode, Tolson, Clark ‘296, nor Bar-on teaches nor
would have suggested the limitations of claim 83, the examiner observes, “[a] telephone
system requires a destination address within the signal to direct the transmitted signal
to the specific receiver.” (Paper No. 46 at 19.) He asserts, “[i]t would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to include a reference time signal and an
address code to increase to permit communication over a non dedicated system in the
above modified data transmission system as suggested by Shelley.” (Id.) The
appellants argue, "[n]othing in Shelley suggests an RF addressing system as claimed
by which a radio-equipped key can discriminate received data intended for that key
from received data intended for other keys." (Paper No. 47 at 22.)
Claim 83 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: "means for
identifying radio frequency signals carrying data intended for said key, as opposed to
other signals intended for other keys." Accordingly, the claim requires distinguishing
signals intended for one key from signals intended for other keys.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007