Appeal No. 1998-0872
Application No. 08/438,479 Page 3
(f) said control unit also having means for activating or
deactivating an output device to control a given security
function of said output device from said graphical image.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner in rejecting the appealed claims are:
Clever 4,237,483 Dec. 2, 1980
Williams 4,581,634 Apr. 8, 1986
Smart, J. C., “Proceedings 1987 Carnahan Conference on Security
Technology: Electronic Crime Countermeasures” (July 15-17, 1987),
pages 1-5.
Claims 98-100, 102-107, 109-121, 123-127, 129, and 130 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Smart
in view of Williams.
Claims 122 and 128 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Smart in view of Williams, and further in
view of Clever.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and appellant regarding the above-noted rejections,
we make reference to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 28, mailed
February 20, 1997) for the examiner's complete reasoning in
support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper No.
27, filed January 8, 1997) and reply brief (Paper No. 29, filed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007