Appeal 2007-0958
Application 10/807,935
Claims 5, 10, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stengel in view of Lemelson and further in view of
Stamm.
Appellants appealed from the Final Rejection and filed an Appeal
Brief (Br.) on June 13, 2006. The Examiner mailed an Examiner’s Answer
(Answer) on July 19, 2006. Appellants filed a Reply Brief (Reply Br.) on
September 19, 2006.
We affirm.2
REFERENCES
The references relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal are as follows:
Stamm US 4,353,064 Oct. 5, 1982
Lemelson US 4,354,189 Oct. 12, 1982
Stengel US 5,109,530 Apr. 28, 1992
ISSUES
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting representative claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Stengel and Lemelson.
This issue specifically turns on whether the combination of Stengel
and Lemelson teaches or suggests “processing the electromagnetic signal
during the extended time period to obtain an input code” and “providing a
signal to unlock a device if the input code matches the access code”, as
required by claim 1.
2 Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered
in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could have made but chose
not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013