Appeal No. 2000-0435
Application No. 08/614,930
master station”. If, as stated in the Decision on
Appeal, the range of the vehicle from the transmitter
constitutes a “use restriction” within the meaning of
Claim 1, it is clearly not defined by data stored in the
master station, as Claim 1 recites. Rather, the range of
the transmitter is a property which is inherent in the
transmitter and receiver apparatus of the system, and is
unrelated to any information which is stored in the
portable unit of Dortenzio et al. Moreover, Claim 1
further recites that the master station “broadcasts said
data which define use restrictions applicable to the
vehicle”. Once again, accepting for argument’s sake that
the use restriction in question is satisfied by the range
of the portable unit from the vehicle, it is apparent
that such limitation is unrelated to and independent of
any use restrictions applicable to the vehicle which are
defined by data broadcast by the master station.
A fair reading of Claim 1 requires that the use
limitations applicable to the vehicle be defined by data
which are stored in the master station and that the
master station broadcasts such data (containing use
restrictions) to the vehicle. The Dortenzio et al
reference is fundamentally different, and satisfies
neither of the foregoing limitations of Claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments to the contrary notwithstanding,
there is a direct relationship in Dortenzio between the range of
master station transmitter 101 from the receiver 201 in the
vehicle, and the signal strength of the pulse duration data
signals. If the vehicle is out of the prescribed use restriction
range, then it will not receive the transmitted pulse duration data
signals. Thus, we are still of the opinion (decision, page 4) that
“[t]he ‘data which define use restrictions applicable to the
vehicle . . . stored in the master station’ are the specified
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007