Appeal No. 2000-2074
Application 09/178,070
Upon consideration, we fail to find that Katzenstein,
Reitboeck or that which is known in the art teach the limitation,
“Counterpart of known identity is designed to receive emissions
at one particular pulse number . . . and no other; and if said
other Counterpart’s emitted irregularity occurs at that one pulse
number identity is established by the reception of emissions to
said Counterpart of known identity after which the Counterparts
have means to indicate emissions have been sent and received,
whereby Identification has been validated” found in claim 1. The
Examiner states that Katzenstein does not disclose this
limitation by acknowledging that the device does not identify
objects by counting the number of pulses. Thus, our analysis
turns on whether Reitboeck or that which is known in the art
teach the missing element of claim 1.
Reitboeck teaches an identification system that does count
the number of pulses and does use the number of pulses to
constitute an identifying code. See Abstract, lines 19-20 and
column 2, lines 5-8 and 53-59 of Reitboeck. However, Reitboeck
teaches counting and receiving any number of pulses that serve as
code for identifying objects and not to receive one and no other
number of pulses. On the other hand, the recited claim requires
the counterpart of known identity to be designed to receive
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007