Appeal 2007-0205
Application 09/812,302
4. Claims 4-6, 16-20, 22-26, 43-47, 49, 53, 56-58, 62, 63, 66, 67, and
77-813 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Su and Lowe.
5. Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Su, Lowe, and Zimmermann.
6. Claims 50-53 and 55 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Su, Lowe, and Allen.
Rather than reiterate the opposing arguments, we refer to the Briefs
and the Answer for the respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner.
We affirm.
THE ISSUE
1. 35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
To show that the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a), Appellants argue that the devices disclosed in Su use
wired prototypes and merely indicate whether the device is present or not,
instead of actually “locating” the device (Reply Br. 10). Appellants further
contend that even if such detection in Su meets the “locating” limitation of
the claims, detecting the device in combination with the wireless
communication capability is not disclosed (id.). Therefore the issue turns on
whether Su teaches the claimed subject matter including locating the device
by receiving a wireless transmission, as recited in claim 1.
3 The rejection appears to have been intended to include claims 75 and 76.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013