Appeal 2007-0981
Application 10/803,434
systems making a decision whether to unlock the respective door in response
to a user making an attempt to unlock the door based on the access
information stored therein and without having to further communicate with
the central access control system.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Pilney US 5,298,883 Mar. 29, 1994
Goldman US 5,321,963 Jun. 21, 1994
Kniffin US 6,072,402 Jun. 6, 2000
(filed Jan. 9, 1992)
Pinzon US 6,161,005 Dec. 12, 2000
(filed Aug. 10, 1998)
MacLellan US 6,177,861 B1 Jan. 23, 2001
(filed Jul. 17, 1998)
Denison US 6,359,547 B1 Mar. 19, 2002
(filed Dec. 4, 1996)
Claims 1-7, 10-16, and 27-29, all of the appealed claims, stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). As evidence of obviousness, the
Examiner offers Kniffin in view of Pinzon with respect to claims 1, 2, 4, and
10-12, adds Goldman to the basic combination with respect to claim 3, adds
Pilney to the basic combination with respect to claim 5, 27, and 28, adds
Denison to the basic combination with respect to claim 6, and adds
MacLellan to the basic combination with respect to claims 7 and 13-16.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over the combination of Kniffin and Pilney.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the respective details
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013