Appeal 2007-0981
Application 10/803,434
claimed. According to Appellants (Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 1-2), the user in
Kniffin, in contrast to the claimed invention, must contact a clearinghouse
with a request for a access to a locked door with the clearinghouse then
transmitting the access information to the remote access control system.
We do not disagree with Appellants that various embodiments of the
remote control locking system of Kniffin operate exactly as Appellants have
stated. From our own independent review of Kniffin, however, it is also
apparent to us that, as alluded to by the Examiner (Answer 13-14), other
embodiments disclosed by Kniffin operate with preprogrammed access
information in the lock and do not require any user access request
communication with a clearinghouse. For example, the embodiment
described at column 5, lines 40-59 of Kniffin involves the preprogramming
of access information transmitted from a central access control system to a
remote access control system at a door on a periodic basis, i.e., without any
request by a user for access to the door. Again, Kniffin, at column 5, lines
53-55 states “[t]he door’s memory can be reprogrammed with updated
authorization data daily, or at such interval as may be appropriate.”
For their part, Appellants contend (Reply Br. 2) that Kniffin’s use of the
word “foregoing” (col. 5, l. 40) in describing the preprogrammed
authorization embodiment must be interpreted to mean that the previously
described user access request requirement must also be part of the
preprogrammed embodiment. We find no basis for interpreting the
disclosure of Kniffin in the manner suggested by Appellants. We fail to see
the point of preprogramming access information into a lock access control if
a user would still be required to request access authorization from a
clearinghouse as contended by Appellants. In our view, the ordinarily
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013