Appeal No. 2002-1695 Page 5
Application No. 08/971,386
and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of
the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
The examiner's position (answer, page 4) is that the
admitted prior art (APA) discloses that in the prior art, after a
workstation has been forwarded to the user, software is
downloaded after installing the hardware, and that label tags and
serial numbers are used to identify the workstation for inventory
purposes. The examiner asserts (id.) that in an analogous art,
Anders discloses a system relating to identification for
inventory. The examiner notes that Anders' teachings relate to
the attachment of passive and active transceivers which can be
coded, erased, recorded or altered and attached to various items
as “tags,” and the use of active transceivers for using and
analyzing the information received from the passive transceivers.
The examiner notes (id.) that Anders discloses operation of his
system in the RF range, and asserts that Anders' passive receiver
90 meets the claimed "dual port RF identification tag." The
examiner further asserts (answer, page 5) that Anders discloses
various embodiments which locate tags in a multitude of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007