Appeal No. 98-1394 Page 5
Application No. 08/325,448
With these in mind, we consider the appellants’ argument and
the examiner’s reply.
The appellants argue, “none of the references describe or
suggest enabling a marker transmitter based upon control
information obtained from a paging receiver.” The examiner
replies, ”Wohl discloses a transponder (a cellular telephone
with pager) system comprising a paging network which
communicates a transponder with a paging frequency, and the
transponder transmits a frequency different from the paging
network's frequency (col. 1, lines 24-45).” (Examiner’s
Answer at 5.)
“‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every
application is subjected, is to try to make sure that what
each claim defines is patentable. [T]he name of the game is
the claim ....’” In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369,
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Giles S. Rich,
The Extent of the Protection and Interpretation of Claims --
American Perspectives, 21 Int'l Rev. Indus. Prop. & Copyright
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007