Appeal No. 1999-2841
Application No. 08/655,133
OPINION
Claims 1-8, 10, 12, and 19-26 are subject to a section 102 rejection as being
anticipated by Lemelson. With respect to instant claim 1, appellant argues (Brief at 6)
that “Lemelson does not disclose a database at the called station, or searching such a
database, or searching such a database before responding to a communication
request....”
The examiner responds (Answer at 8) by equating the “PIN code stored in
memory and later utilized in a matching process” with the claimed “database.”
“[A]lthough Lemelson does not disclose the word ‘database’ per se, it is inherent if not
analogous that a memory unit where an item is stored and later retrieved qualifies as a
database.” (Id.)
Lemelson describes (col. 4, l. 48 - col. 5, l. 6 and col. 6, ll. 7-24) using a PIN code
that may be stored at remote portable unit 10 (Fig. 3). Microprocessor 12 may compare
an ID code transmitted by a monitor control center 35 (Fig. 2) with an identification code
stored in memory 19 (generated by a first code generator 18), and may compare an
activating PIN code from the control center with a PIN stored in memory 21 (generated
by a second code generator 21) or stored in ROM 13 or RAM 14. We interpret
Lemelson as disclosing a single activating PIN code for the remote portable unit 10,
which appears to be consistent with the examiner’s reading of the reference (e.g.,
Answer at 9).
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007