Appeal No. 2000-2074
Application 09/178,070
whereby Identification has been validated.” Taking a reasonably
broad interpretation, claim 1 requires the counterpart of known
identity to be designed to receive emissions at one particular
pulse number and no other after an irregularity has been emitted
from the counterpart and if the other counterpart’s emitted
irregularity occurs at the pulse number, identification between
the counterparts is established. Additionally when reading the
limitation, “Counterpart of known identity is designed to receive
emissions at one particular pulse number and no other,” in light
of Appellant’s specification, page 3, lines 33 through 35
describe the one pulse number to be the number of pulses for a
particular category of things. Thus, the phrase, “Counterpart of
known identity is designed to receive emissions at one particular
pulse number . . . and no other” in claim 1, would be interpreted
by one of ordinary skill in the art as being designed to receive
emission at a particular number of pulses and no other number of
pulses.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443,
1444 (Fed Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007