Appeal 2007-0958
Application 10/807,935
among other things: reading and writing codes to memory . . . .” (Br. 9).
We disagree.
Both Stengel and Lemelson disclose data being stored in memory and
periodically retrieved for comparison therewith. (FF 6 and 10). The claim
language do not require the writing or reading of the access code to/from
memory at any particular time, just that it is done in response to a write/read
signal. It is our view that a write/read signal is inherently required in order
to have the data stored in memory and retrieved from memory, respectively.
Accordingly, we conclude that the subject matter of claims 27, 30, 36,
and 39 would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art given the
teachings of Stengel and Lemelson.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-21, 23, 25, 27-31, 36-40, and 44-48.
Thus, claims 1-21, 23, 25, 27-31, 36-40, and 44-48 are not patentable.
Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 26, 34, 35, and 43 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Stengel and Lemelson.
17
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013