Appeal No. 1998-0957
Application 08/258,409
the arguments. See Id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039,
228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Passaic, 745 F.2d
1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Only those arguments actually made by appellant have been
considered in this decision. Arguments which appellant could
have made but chose not to make in the brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
The examiner cites Stevens as an electronic price
display system which only lacks the power saving features of
the claims. The examiner cites Anders as teaching that a
transceiver need not always be powered by a battery, but can
also be powered by an RF signal to reduce the toll on the
battery. The examiner asserts that Anders would have
suggested the obviousness of any combination of power sources.
Inagami is cited to teach the obviousness of switching between
a high clock and a low clock frequency to conserve power
[answer, pages 5-6].
Appellant points to the limitation of claim 1 that the
controller is connected to the power source whereas the
passive RF transceiver is not connected to the power source.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007