Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112 requiring that such claim
limitations be interpreted as step-plus-function limitations. We
find no basis for Appellants’ assertion that the method steps of
claims 70, 71, 75 are analogous to the step of “adhering the mat
to the foundation” which Judge Rader’s opinion in the Seal-Flex
case suggested would set forth a function which would be governed
by the sixth paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112. We remain of the
opinion that the method steps of, for example, “embedding a bit
timing clock signal’ (claim 70) and “generating a bit-timing
clock signal” (claims 71 and 75) do not recite “functions” but
rather recite “acts” which describe how the underlying function
of tag interrogation is performed.
We also find to be without merit Appellants’ assertion of
error in our original decision affirming the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 47 and 56 based on Carroll.
Appellants have not attacked our agreement with the Examiner’s
line of reasoning asserting the obviousness to the skilled
artisan of including a tuning capacitor in the circuitry of
Carroll. Rather, Appellants’ arguments in the Request reiterate
those made with respect to claims 70, 71, and 75 which contend
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007