Appeal No. 96-2023
Application No. 08/139,642
corresponding to one of the sequence of the plurality of
handshake signals.
Davis appears to disclose an adaptive signal decoder
which merely chooses one of a plurality of transmitted
signals. However, there is no disclosure therein of two-way
communication wherein a sequence of handshake signals is
output until the transmitter is activated by one of the
signals and an answer is received in a data format
corresponding to one of the sequence of handshake signals.
Davis does not even discuss handshake signals at all. For
this, the examiner relies on Aoki for a showing that
handshaking signals were well known in the art and this much,
of course, is not denied by appellants. However, the mere
fact that handshaking signals, per se, were known does not in
any way lead to a conclusion of obviousness in regard to
applying a sequence of a plurality of handshaking signals in
the manner claimed.
Sedam is apparently employed by the examiner only for a
teaching of storing log information and, therefore, it seems
irrelevant with regard to the independent claims. It is
unclear why the examiner included this reference in the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007