Ex Parte Rodenbeck et al - Page 7

                 Appeal 2007-0981                                                                                         
                 Application 10/803,434                                                                                   
                 skilled artisan would have recognized and appreciated that any requirement                               
                 for user access request from a central clearinghouse would defeat the                                    
                 purpose of preprogramming access authorization into the remote access lock                               
                 control.                                                                                                 
                     We make further reference to an additional embodiment of Kniffin which                               
                 buttresses the view that different embodiments and variations thereof                                    
                 disclosed by Kniffin describe situations in which access information is                                  
                 programmed into the lock control and a user need not contact a central                                   
                 clearinghouse for access.  In a variation of the cellular telephone                                      
                 embodiment described beginning at column 7, line 17 of Kniffin, a user                                   
                 utilizes a cellular telephone to transmit RF signals to a lock control system,                           
                 which checks to see if the user is on a programmed list of authorized users,                             
                 to gain access to a locked door without transmitting to a clearinghouse.                                 
                 (Kniffin, col. 7, ll. 36-37 and 44-49).                                                                  
                     In view of the above discussion and analysis of the disclosure of Kniffin,                           
                 we find that, although the Examiner’s stated rejection included a reliance on                            
                 Pinzon to provide a teaching of preprogramming access control information                                
                 into a lock system independent of a user request for access, this teaching is                            
                 cumulative to what is already disclosed by Kniffin.  Accordingly, it is our                              
                 opinion that, although we found no error in the Examiner’s proposed                                      
                 combination of Kniffin and Pinzon as discussed supra, the Pinzon reference                               
                 is not necessary for a proper rejection of independent claim 1 since all of the                          
                 claimed elements are in fact present in the disclosure of Kniffin.                                       
                         For the above reasons, since it is our opinion that the Examiner has                             
                 established a prima facie case of obviousness which has not been overcome                                
                 by any convincing arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.                                    

                                                            7                                                             

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013