Appeal No. 1998-1600
Application No. 08/434,898
The examiner relies on the following references:
Murdock 3,314,009 Apr. 11, 1967
Echert et al. (Echert) 4,924,698 May 15, 1990
Schultz 5,083,457 Jan. 28, 1992
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Murdock in
view of Echert and further in view of Schultz.
Reference is made to the brief and answer for the respective positions of
appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
We reverse.
The language of claim 8 clearly calls for two-way communication between the
master modem means and the slave modem in each subsurface instrument. Neither
Murdock nor Echert, the two primary references dealing with oceanographic data
collection, discloses such two-way communication. They are each concerned with the
sending of data (i.e., collection of data) from the subsurface instrument to the boat or buoy.
Neither Murdock nor Echert teaches communication from the boat or buoy to the
subsurface instrument. Further, neither of these references teaches the claimed wake-up
detector.
The examiner employs Schultz for the teaching of a wake-up detector for the
purpose of saving battery power and combines this teaching with Murdock and Echert,
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007