Appeal No. 1998-0957
Application 08/258,409
Appellant argues that all the circuitry in Anders is powered
by the RF energy. Since all the circuitry in Stevens is also
powered by a single power source, appellant argues that there
is no teaching regarding certain elements powered by the power
source and certain other elements not powered by the power
source as recited in representative claim 1 [brief, pages 8-
10]. The examiner responds that Anders teaches that some of
the elements are powered by conventional power cells while
other elements are powered by RF energy [answer, pages 8-9].
We have carefully considered the teachings of the
applied prior art, and we agree with appellant that Anders
does not teach or suggest using different power sources for
different elements of that system. The passive transceiver of
Anders is shown in Figure 7. The broadband RF energy is
converted to DC and is used to charge whatever type of power
source is available and that charge is applied to power unit
105. Power unit 105 then powers all elements within the
transceiver as argued by appellant.
The clear difference between the claimed invention and
the teachings of the applied prior art is the connection of a
controller to a power source but not connecting a passive RF
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007