Appeal No. 1999-2841
Application No. 08/655,133
Lemelson refers to a “database” which may be maintained at the central monitor
station (col. 1, ll. 40-46; col. 3, ll. 17-20; col. 8, claim 2; and col. 10, claim 30). However,
the examiner has not pointed out any occurrence of the reference referring to the
information maintained (e.g., PIN code) at the remote portable unit as any sort of
“database.” We are well aware that a reference need not use the identical terminology
set forth in a claim to anticipate subject matter circumscribed by the claim. However,
the examiner has submitted no evidence that the artisan would have interpreted the PIN
code or any other information in the receiving unit as a database. The evidence
provided by Lemelson is to the contrary -- the reference refers to one organization of
data as a database, but not in the called station as required by claim 1.
Thus, absent additional evidence in support of the examiner’s position, we find
appellant’s position to be persuasive. Lemelson has not been shown to disclose a
database within the remote unit. Nor does the reference support the examiner’s
position (Answer at 9) that the microprocessor must perform a “search” in memory to
determine the location of the relevant code. We find Lemelson to disclose or suggest
no more than direct access (i.e., ROM or RAM) memory for storage of the codes, and
does not describe any kind of “searching” through memory in the manner alleged.
We therefore cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1. Independent claims 10 and
22 also require a database at the called station. We thus cannot sustain the section
102 rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 12, 22, and 23, as each of the claims contain or
incorporate limitations we find missing from Lemelson. We also do not sustain the
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007