Appeal No. 1997-2455
Application 08/318,235
considered as a whole; there is no legally recognizable
‘heart’ of the invention.“ Para-Ordnance Mfg. v SGS Importers
Int’l Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed.
Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996) (citing W. L.
Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1548,
220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851
(1984)).
On page 18 of the brief, Appellants assert that Beigel
does not teach that the tag draws power from the carrier
signal while some of the power is being stored. On page 20 of
the brief, Appellants assert that Schuermann does not provide
power while the RF pulse is present, but rather supplies power
after the RF pulse has ended. Further, on page 21 of the
brief, Appellants assert that there is no motivation to
combine Schuermann with Beigel.
On page 4 of the answer, the Examiner asserts that
modifying Beigel to include well-known power supply designs
are obvious “since such means and methods of powering
electronic devices are known and within the level or ordinary
skill in the art.” On page 4 of the final Office action,
paper number 9, the Examiner asserts that Schuermann provides
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007