Appeal No. 1996-3084
Application 08/168,167
to the subject matter of claim 1 with the further feature
recited that additional elements permit determining the
relative positioning of the transceiver means and the selected
label based on attributes of the signal received by the
transceiver means from the transponder. We sustain the
rejection of this claim for the reasons set forth by the
examiner and note further that appellant has presented no
arguments with respect to dependent claims 10 through 15.
Even a brief study of Juengel indicates that at least
with respect to the showing in Figure 7 of the transceiver 114
communicating with each of the tools 104 via transponder unit
112 therein as they rotate about the drum or magazine 102 for
selection of the tool in accordance with the known prior art
teachings identified as conventional in the art in the
discussion beginning at column 4, line 49, the ability to
select between rotation tool bits determines relative position
based upon received signals. Appellant's brief summary of
Juengel at the top of page 8 even recognizes that Juengel is
an interrogation-response-based system which generally even
uses the term “transponder and transceiver” indicating
bidirectional communications exist between transceiver 114 and
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007