Appeal No. 1995-1052
Application No. 07/944,562
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by, or in the
alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Roth. Claim 10 stands rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Hashimoto. Claims 13 -19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Hashimoto in view of Roth.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 16, mailed Aug. 26, 1994) for the examiner's reasoning in support of
the rejections, and to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 14, filed Jun. 15, 1994) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to the
appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we make the determinations which follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
The examiner maintains that Hashimoto discloses at column 6 that control
information can be recorded with a RF signal in order to determine the presence or
absence of the RF signal and the control signal may be superimposed as a pulse signal
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007