Appeal No. 2000-2074
Application 09/178,070
and well-known commercially available pulse counters discussed on
page 4, lines 10-11 of Appellant’s specification to teach the
missing limitation of identifying objects by counting the number
of pulses transmitted. See page 4, line 17 through page 5, line
2 of Examiner’s Answer. The motivation provided by the Examiner
to combine these references is the desirability to simplify
Katzenstein’s system and to make the system more reliable. See
page 5, lines 2-6 of Examiner’s Answer.
Appellant argues that neither Katzenstein nor Reitboeck
teach the recited identification system of claim 1. Appellant
states that the recited device has a source and receiver that are
identified as counterparts of each other if “the RECEIVER’s
single emission at one pulse number occurs when the SOURCE’s
single receptive pulse number occurs.” See page 3, line 21
through page 4, line 2 of Supplemental Appeal Brief. Appellant
states that the cyclic interactions and series of signals in
Katzenstein do not disclose or teach the irregular emission of
one counterpart (the receiver) at a pulse number occurs when the
other counterpart’s (the source) single receptive pulse number
occurs as recited in claim 1. See page 4, lines 1-2 of
Supplemental Appeal Brief. Additionally, Appellant asserts that
Reitboeck’s identification system uses succession of pulses to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007