Appeal No. 2000-0972
Application No. 08/679,848
and the disclosed and claimed invention have “radio frequency
interference reduction” as an underlying concept. Our
agreement with the examiner, however, does not extend to any
inference by the examiner that the implementation of that
concept by the disclosed and claimed invention is the same as
the implementation of that concept by Klandrud. In Klandrud,
the warning signal transmitted by the beacon units 5 and 6 is
transmitted at a frequency that can interfere with the RA
receiver 1. As indicated supra, that is why the beacons 5 and
6 are located far enough away from the RA receiver 1 to avoid
interference. Thus, Klandrud neither teaches nor would have
suggested a warning signal means connected to either the RA
receiver (claim 1) or the mobile units (claim 2) that
transmits at a frequency band different than the frequency
band signals received by the RA receiver (reply brief, page
7). More importantly, the possibility of interference between
the beacons and the RA receiver requires that they not be
“collocated” (claim 1) (brief, pages 13 and 14). Lastly, the
mobile units in Klandrud would never transmit any type of
warning signal to the RA receiver because such a signal would
interfere with the normal operation of the RA receiver (claim
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007