Appeal 2007-0958
Application 10/807,935
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection
of claims 1-48 entered December 13, 2005. However, in the Examiner’s
Answer mailed July 19, 2006 the rejection of claims 22, 24, 32, 33, 41, and
42 are withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Appellants invented a method for operating an electronic access
control device. (Specification 4:18-22).
The appeal contains claims 1-21, 23, 25-31, 34-40, and 43-48. Claims
1, 8 and 15 are independent claims. As best representative of the disclosed
and claimed invention, claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising the steps of:
deactivating a circuit during a first time period;
enabling a portion of the circuit for a second time period;
sensing an electromagnetic signal during the second time
period;
enabling the circuit for an extended time period that is greater
than the second time period upon the sensing of the electromagnetic signal;
processing the electromagnetic signal during the extended time
period to obtain an input code;
comparing the input code to an access code; and
providing a signal to unlock a device if the input code matches
the access code.
The following revised rejections were presented in the Examiner’s
Answer on pages 3-4 and are now before us for review:
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-17, 19-21, 23, 25-31, 34-40, and 43-48 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Stengel in
view of Lemelson; and
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013