Appeal No. 1997-0884
Application 08/260,148
obviousness. The rejection of claims 1-5 over the APA and
Bachhuber is reversed.
Finally, we comment on the following statement by the
Examiner in the Final Rejection (FR3-4):
The references (Lindmayer and Bachhuber) discuss
safeguarding the code word. The discussion is based upon
the ideas that 'if the transmitter has a code word...do
not divulge the code when in the transmission mode.' In
this scenario, it is reasonable that the system operates
in an "if...then" mode. This is the same as or
equivalent to the flag set and check method claimed by
the applicant. These are the same when the programming
of the device is accomplished.
This argument reduces the claimed invention to a general
"gist" of the invention, safeguarding the code word, and
suggests that any prior art that had this same idea would be
equivalent in terms of patentability. This is erroneous.
There may be many nonobvious ways to perform the same function
or get the same result. Patentability is determined by the
words of the claim and it is the claim language that must be
addressed.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claim 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
is reversed.
- 11 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007