Appeal No. 2001-0040
Application No. 09/037,105
has not provided convincing argument/evidence to the contrary. Therefore, we will
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 11.
Appellant objects to the varied use of Ruell in the combination with Knapp. (See
brief at page 7.) We do not find any problem with the use of all the teachings of a
reference in varied combination as long as they are reasonable interpretations of the
respective teachings. Here, the examiner has set forth reasonable interpretations.
35 U.S.C. § 103
With respect to independent claim 1, appellant maintains that the combination is
deficient as discussed above. (See brief at page 7.) We disagree with appellant, as
discussed above. Appellant argues that the examiner’s combination is based upon
speculation and impermissible hindsight. (See brief at page 7.) We disagree with
appellant. We find that the examiner has set forth a well-reasoned analysis of both
Knapp and Ruell and has addressed the motivation for modifying the teachings of
Knapp with those of Ruell for providing an extra level of security. (See answer at
page 8.) Appellant argues that there is no teaching or suggestion of how the various
types of circuitry required by Ruell’s different types of sensors could be incorporated
into the matrix of Knapp and that the additional circuitry would require undue
experimentation. (See reply brief at page 3.) We disagree with appellant. The
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007