Appeal 2007-0981
Application 10/803,434
but, instead, have chosen to rely on arguments made with respect to parent
claim 1, which arguments we found to be unpersuasive as discussed supra.
We also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 6 in which the Denison reference is added to the proposed
combination of Kniffin and Pinzon. Appellants (Br. 9; Reply Br. 3) attack
the teaching of Denison as providing a disclosure of a wired port only as an
alternative to a wireless port in contrast to the language of claim 6 which
requires both wired and wireless communication. Our review of the
disclosure of Denison, however, reveals that Denison does in fact provide
for both wired and wireless communication. For example, in addition to the
portion of Denison (col. 3, ll. 36-39) cited by the Examiner as teaching a
wired port, Denison also provides for wireless communication as illustrated
in the Figure 6 embodiment described beginning at column 9, line 50.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 7 and 13-16 in which the periodic updating features of the
MacLellan reference are added to the proposed combination of Kniffin and
Pinzon, we also sustain this rejection. Appellants’ arguments (Br. 10-11) in
response reiterate those made with respect claim 1 alleging the failure of
MacLellan to provide a teaching of wireless transmission of authorization
information from a central control to a remote access control independent of
any user access request. As we discussed previously, however, such a
teaching is found in the disclosure of Kniffin.
Lastly, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
dependent claims 27 and 28 and independent claim 29 in which the Pilney
reference is added to Kniffin to address the “normally powered down”
feature of these claims. Our review of Kniffin, however, indicates that this
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013