Appeal No. 1998-2868
Application No. 08/635,986
system. Thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 1 and 2 is
sustained.
Turning next to claims 7 and 11, the examiner has
erroneously concluded (Answer, page 5) that “the claimed
plurality of fixed receivers is met by the locally fixed
transmitters (1A, 1B, figure 1, column 4, lines 29-41).” The
locally fixed transmitters 1A and 1B in Akerberg (Figures 1
and 3) never function as receivers. For this reason, we agree
with appellants’ argument (Brief, page 8) that Akerberg is
incapable of “tracking time spaced transmissions.” In
summary, the obviousness rejection of claims 7 and 11 is
reversed.
DECISION
The decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 7 and
11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is sustained as to claims 1 and 2,
and is reversed as to claims 7 and 11. Accordingly, the
decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007