Appeal No. 2000-2074
Application 09/178,070
indicate emissions have been sent and received, whereby
Identification has been validated.” Thus for the same reasons,
we fail to sustain the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103. In accordance, the rejections of dependent claims 18-22
are also not upheld.
As such, we find that the Examiner has not met the burden
for establishing a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 1
through 22 based on the combination of Katzenstein, Reitboeck and
admitted prior art. None of the references provide the requisite
findings or reasons by which the findings support the conclusion
that the references teach limitation of a “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 the 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.”
Appellant also states that the Examiner erred by refusing
entry of an amendment after final on the basis that the
amendments raise new issues and the question of new matter. See
page 3, lines 4-6 and page 4, lines 3-6 of Supplemental Appeal
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007