Appeal No. 2000-0426
Application No. 08/427,447
Rather than repeat the arguments of appellant and the
examiner, we make reference to the brief (paper no. 16) and the
examiners’ answer (paper no. 17) for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
We have considered the rejections advanced by the examiner and
the supporting arguments. We have, likewise, reviewed the
appellant’s arguments set forth in the brief.
We affirm-in-part
We note that independent claim 2 is an apparatus claim and the
other independent claim 6 is the corresponding method claim. For
our analysis, we take claim 2 as an example. After discussing the
Joselowitz reference, the examiner makes the finding (answer at
page 4) that Joselowitz (figure 3) does not specifically disclose
that transmitter 16 interrogates transponder 20 periodically.
However, the examiner asserts (id.) that “[i]t is a common practice
in the art for the interrogator periodically interrogating the
transponder in its optimum time interval which is based upon the
specific application requirement. The purpose of periodical
transmission is to save energy of the power source such as
battery.” Appellant argues (brief at page 5) that “there is no
provision in the prior art to suggest the desirability of modifying
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007