Appeal 2007-0981
Application 10/803,434
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2, 4,
and 10-12 not separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of dependent
claim 3 in which Goldman is added to the combination of Kniffin and
Pinzon. Initially, we find Appellants’ arguments (Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 2-3)
related to the alleged deficiency in the applied prior art in providing a
teaching of an exterior mounted antenna to be unpersuasive since, as alluded
to by the Examiner (Answer 14), Kniffin in fact illustrates the receiving and
transmitting antennas being mounted exteriorly of the lock housing 12. We
also find no error in the Examiner’s establishment of proper motivation for
adding to the proposed combination the teachings of the Goldman reference,
which illustrates in Figure 3 the control element 116 mounted on the inside
of the door 112. In our view, the ordinarily skilled artisan would have
recognized and appreciated the obvious security and environmental
protection advantages of placing the wireless communication and remote
access control circuitry on the inside of the door housing. As the Supreme
Court stated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. at 1742-43, 82
USPQ2d at 1397, “[r]igid preventative rules that deny factfinders recourse to
common sense, however, are neither necessary under our case law nor
consistent with it.”
With respect to dependent claim 5, we also find no error in the
Examiner’s establishment of proper motivation for adding Pilney’s teaching
of providing a receiving/transmitting switch to the proposed combination of
Kniffin and Pinzon and, accordingly, we sustain this rejection as well.
Appellants have made no separate arguments for patentability of this claim
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013