Appeal No. 2002-0333 Application No. 09/127,713 parameterization scheme taught by Wilz “because this would separate the functions of the reader between data collection and programming, preventing the reader from being accidentally re-programmed during data collection” (answer-page 6). Whether or not it would have been obvious to combine Wilz and Poland, it is clear from the examiner’s employment of Poland that Poland does not remedy the deficiency of Wilz as outlined supra. Accordingly, we also will not sustain the rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. §103 over Wilz and Poland. The examiner’s decision is reversed. REVERSED KENNETH W. HAIRSTON ) Administrative Patent Judge ) ) ) ) ) BOARD OF PATENT ERROL A. KRASS ) APPEALS Administrative Patent Judge ) AND ) INTERFERENCES ) ) ) JOSEPH L. DIXON ) Administrative Patent Judge ) EAK/vsh 9Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007