Appeal No. 2006-1156
Application No. 09/903,882
With regard to claim 15, in addition to similar arguments made before, appellant
indicates that the limitation of “binding the first device as part of the control group” is not taught
by Kowalski’s module in an EXEC state, as asserted by the examiner, because the object of
Kowalski is to select a single module from a plurality of modules in order to establish
communication between a terminal and the selected module. Thus, appellant concludes,
Kowalski cannot suggest binding a module to a group, as recited in claim 15.
We agree with the examiner, at page 18 of the answer, that a control group can have a
single device, as suggested by even appellant’s disclosure of binding “one or more” lamps.
Moreover, as pointed out by the examiner, at page 18 of the answer, the modules with which T
establishes communication in Kowalski and are commanded to perform operations are
understood to be part of a control group.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We will also sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the reasons given
by the examiner at page 19 of the answer in response to appellant’s argument at pages 34-35 of
the principal brief.
The rejection of claims 9 and 10 depends on a combination of Armstrong and Houggy.
The examiner pointed to the description of Armstrong’s transponder 150 shown in Figure 11 and
noted that Armstrong disclosed the claimed subject matter but for the processor of the
transponder transmitting a response to the host computer 100 after a predetermined time period
upon receiving a Read Tag ID command or address request signal. The examiner turned to
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007