Appeal No. 97-1384
Application 08/068,357
Accordingly, Rubin clearly teaches that both the receiver and the
transmitter are, or may be, given identifier codes, or serial
numbers. Therefore, contrary to appellant's position, we view
Rubin as fairly suggesting the broadcasting of a serial number of
the transmitting RF modem.
Going on to appellant's second argument, appellant
argues that even if Rubin is interpreted (as we do) as
broadcasting the serial number of the sending transceiver, Rubin
does not teach producing a reply signal that includes the serial
number of the receiving transponder.
Again, we disagree with appellant. As the examiner
contends, when one takes the teachings of the references as a
whole, with Nelson teaching a general radio data link with logic
means for producing a reply signal, Caswell teaching that each RF
modem comprises a predetermined serial number and Rubin teaching
received messages having IDs of both the transmitter and the
intended receiver, the artisan would clearly have been led to
include, in the reply signal of Nelson, the serial number, or ID,
of the receiving transponder. Moreover, any reply signal from a
receiver, which is a transceiver acting in its receiver mode, may
fairly be considered as a signal from a transceiver acting in its
transmitter mode. As explained supra, Rubin fairly suggests the
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007