Appeal No. 97-2879
Application No. 08/507,181
In response, appellant argues (Brief, page 4) that:
The Stoller reference shows a security system for
detecting eavesdropping. The examiner indicates
that Stoller teaches a portable unit which transmits
an identification number which must be validated at
the receiving unit in order to determine whether
access will be granted. The key difference is that
in Stoller’s system, the operator of the portable
unit initiates the transmission of the
identification number. In the applicant’s system,
the terminal sends out a hailing message and the
transmission of the identification number is made by
the portable unit in response to the hailing message
from the terminal. This results in an entirely
different type of operation.
We agree. The obviousness rejection of claims 16 and 18
is reversed because the transmitter in Stoller “initiates the
transmission of the identification number” without a hailing
message from the receiving unit (Brief, page 4).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007