Appeal 2007-0958
Application 10/807,935
of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the
art.” In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364, 70 USPQ2d
1827, 1830 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Stengel further discloses that a signal corresponding to the result of
the comparison is connected to a battery saver switch. (FF 7). Thus, Stengel
discloses providing a signal if the input code matches the access code.
However, Stengel is not being relied upon to show providing a signal
to unlock a device. Instead, the Examiner states that “Lemelson shows an
unlocking device where a receiver in the reader receives a reply signal from
a coded ring.” (Answer 3). In other words, Lemelson is being relied upon
to disclose a receiver providing a signal to unlock a device if codes match.
Specifically, Lemelson discloses means for reading the codes of the
finger ring and in response generating an electrical code to enable a switch
to close or a doorlock to open. (FF 8-9). Lemelson further discloses that a
comparator compares the code with one or more authorized codes and if the
codes match, a signal is generated which is applied to a motor or solenoid
operating the lock to open. (FF 10-11). Thus, it is our view that Lemelson
discloses using a receiver and comparing an input code to an access code
and providing a signal to unlock a device if the input code matches the
access code, as set forth in claim 1. (FF 12).
Based on our analysis of the scope and content of Stengel and
Lemelson, the facts support the conclusion that but for the “providing a
signal to unlock a device if the input code matches the access code” feature,
Stengel’s receiver with battery saver discloses all the elements of the
claimed method and that the above-noted feature was disclosed in Lemelson.
Since each individual function, as described in claim 1, are shown in the
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013