Appeal No. 95-0005
Application 08/141,412
measurements from the meter and then "transmits" them to an
interrogator. It is also not seen how any separate
transmission of signals is initiated other than the original
application of the input signal.
As for method claim 44, much of our discussions above
concerning the over generalization of the appellant’s claimed
invention is applicable. For example, claim 44 requires that
the same pair of primary and secondary windings is used for
bidirectional communication between the interrogator and the
transponder. Claim 44 requires that the transponder first
"determine" the utility measurement data, modulate the
determined data over a clock signal sent by the interrogator,
and placing the modulated signal back onto the secondary
winding for inductive coupling to the primary winding in the
interrogator. These features of the appellant’s claimed
invention have not been
adequately specifically account for. We agree with the
appellant that it is unreasonable to regard Lapsley as
disclosing or suggesting a transponder having the signal
determining and processing capabilities of the appellant’s
claimed transponder. It is not enough that in Lapsley’s
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007