Ex parte CAMPO et al. - Page 10


          Appeal  No. 98-0588                                                          
          Application 08/501,293                                                       

          an antenna 35 for RF transmission to and reception from the                  
          remote units 15.  (Tymes, column 6, lines 66 to column 7, line               
          2, Fig. 10, column 17, lines 16-21).  The transceivers of the                
          scanners and the intermediate computers are configured so that               
          the intermediate computers and the bar code readers                          
          communicate with each other.  (Tymes, column 2, lines 38-43).                
          Tymes also describes that data is transmitted from the reader                
          when the communication channel is free for receipt of data by                
          the computer.  (Tymes, column 5, lines 39-67).  It follows                   
          that Tymes clearly describes a wireless communications system                
          between a scanner and a computer, where the scanner has a                    
          radio transceiver and the computer has a radio transceiver                   
          which are configured to communicate with one another over a                  
          communication channel.                                                       
               As to appellants’ first argument, we find that Reddersen                
          explicitly teaches a scanner capable of selecting between a                  
          plurality of host computers.  Further as to appellants’ final                
          argument, we find that although neither Reddersen nor Tymes                  
          alone teach a radio transmitter within the scanner that could                
          be programmed to a particular one of a plurality of                          
          communication channels, in combination, the references suggest               
          appellants’ claimed invention as recited in independent claims               
          21, 37 and 40.                                                               

                                           10                                          




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007