Appeal No. 96-0312
Application No. 08/083,561
to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which appellant regards as the invention.
Claims 1 through 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Marbaker in view of Comer.
Reference is made to the final rejection, the briefs and
the answers for the respective positions of the appellant and
the examiner.
OPINION
We have carefully considered the entire record before us,
and we will reverse the rejections.
The examiner’s reasons (final rejection, page 2) for
finding claims 1 through 6 indefinite are as follows:
If each station is not aware of commands sent by
other stations, how can the response means at each
station sends [sic, send] a signal in response to a
command as recited in lines 6-10? Additionally, one
skilled in the art cannot understand how each of the
master stations is aware of commands by “identifying
the command in the signal” (line 11), a single
command in the signal.
We are not convinced by the examiner’s reasoning that the
skilled artisan would not understand that a receiving station
can be configured to respond to a command directed to it.
When the receiving station responds to the command, and
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007