Appeal No. 2000-2074
Application 09/178,070
emission “at one particular pulse number and no other” (emphasis
added). Therefore, we do not find that Reitboeck teaches an
identification system with the limitation, “Counterpart of known
identity is designed to receive emissions at one particular pulse
number . . . and no other.”
Additionally, the known prior art described on page 4, lines
10 through 11 of Appellant’s specification does not teach or
suggest that a counterpart is designed to receive emissions at
only one particular pulse number or number of pulses and no
other. This description is only a general teaching that pulse
counters are well known technology.
Since we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, the
rejection of dependent claims 2-16 is also not sustainable.
We next turn to the rejection of claims 17-22 also rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over Katzenstein in view
of Reitboeck and that which is known in the art. Independent
claim 17 also includes the limitation, “Counterpart of known
identity is designed to receive emissions at one particular pulse
number . . . and no other; and if said other Counterpart’s
emitted irregularity occurs at the one pulse number, identity is
established by the reception of emissions to said Counterpart of
known identity after which the Counterparts have means to
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007