Appeal No. 97-1384
Application 08/068,357
2. None of the references teaches broadcasting a reply
signal that includes the serial number of the receiving RF modem
3. None of the references teaches having a switch that
has a plurality of positions representing a plurality of ID
numbers.
With regard to the first argument, Appellant contends
[principal brief, page 5], pointing to column 5, lines 13-19 of
Rubin, that the identifier code indicated by the legend ID in
Rubin does not represent the sending transceiver but, rather the
identifier represents the user's preassigned identification
number.
While Rubin clearly does provide for a preassigned
identification number for the user, appellant appears to have
misinterpreted the language of Rubin at column 5, lines 6-10. We
can agree with appellant that the language "ID of the sender," at
column 7, line 12 of Rubin, in a vacuum, is not clear. Such
language could refer to the ID of a user or to the ID of a
sending, i.e., transmitting, unit. However, at column 5, lines
6-10, Rubin states:
The addition of an identifier code for
the intended recipient of the message to
be sent is indicated by legend TO. The
addition of an identifier of the
transceiver 20 sending the message is
also indicated by legend ID,
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007