Appeal No. 2006-1625
Application No. 09/915,033
customization date, however, the lock determines that the key is a re-utilization of
a lost or stolen key and accordingly prohibits access [Guerin, col. 58-67].
We agree with appellants that such a teaching is not reasonably
combinable with the Lambropoulous/Prosan combination in the manner proposed
by the examiner. We note at the outset that the claims require a remote entry
transmitter code with information that (1) is non-sequential, (2) varies in order of
the time the code was assigned, and (3) includes information associated with the
date and time the code was assigned. Although Guerin compares the electronic
key’s customization date and time to determine whether to permit access and
update the lock’s stored key list, we disagree with the examiner that the skilled
artisan would find it obvious to incorporate this date and time information into the
unique, randomly-generated code of Lambropoulous’ transmitter.
As noted by appellants, the customization date and time of Guerin is used
for comparison purposes for false key detection and expiration date calculations.
The customization date, however, is not used in conjunction with other data to
ensure the uniqueness of a transmitter code that is non-sequential, yet varies in
order that the time the code was determined along with the date and time of code
assignment as claimed. In short, we find no reasonable motivation to combine
Guerin with the Lambropoulous and Prosan references apart from hindsight
reconstruction of the claimed invention.
Nevertheless, we cannot say that no prior art exists that would teach or
suggest adding or embedding a date and time element to a non-sequential data
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007