Appeal No. 2006-0329
Application 09/839,037
THE REJECTIONS
The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as follows:
claims 14-16 and 18 over Muhme in view of Cusack; claims 14, 17, 19,
20, 22 and 23 over Muhme in view of Cusack and Nelson; and claim 21
over Muhme in view of Cusack, Nelson and Byford.
OPINION
We reverse the aforementioned rejections. We need to address
only claim 14, which is the sole independent claim.1
Muhme discloses an item removal security system and method
wherein tags are affixed to the item and to a person transporting
the item into or out of a facility, a reader wirelessly reads and
compares the tags, and if the transporting is unauthorized an alarm
and a lock are activated (col. 1, lines 40-49; col. 3, lines 50-53;
col. 3, line 65 - col. 4, line 15; col. 6, lines 20-22).
1 The examiner does not rely upon Byford for any disclosure
that remedies the deficiency in the references applied to the
independent claim.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007