Appeal No. 2000-0326 Page 4
Application No. 08/644,465
The prior art applied by the examiner in rejecting the
claims follows:
Tarallo et al. (“Tarallo”) 5,054,035 Oct. 1,
1991
Menich et al. (“Menich”) 5,313,489 May
17, 1994.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Tarallo. Claims 1-6 and 8-16 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Tarallo in view of
Menich.
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-16. Accordingly, we
reverse.
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or
appellants in toto, we address their main point of contention.
The examiner asserts, "Tarallo et al. recites . . . monitoring
the received signal transmitted from the remote station and
comparing the received signal with a threshold in order to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007