Appeal No. 2001-0654
Application 08/910,315
REFERENCES
The references relied on by the Examiner are as follows:
Hillis 5,303,297 Apr. 12, 1994
Wizgall et al. (Wizgall) 5,630,209 May 13, 1997
Emery et al. (Emery) 5,727,057 Mar. 10, 1998
(filed Dec. 27, 1994)
Rejections At Issue
Claims 1, 2 and 4 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hillis in view of Emery.
Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hillis in view of Emery and Wizgall.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or Examiner,
we make reference to the brief and answer for the respected
details thereof.
OPINION
With full consideration being given to the subject matter on
appeal, the Examiner’s rejections and the arguments of Appellants
and the Examiner, for the reasons stated infra, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants point out that Appellants’ apparatus claim 1 and
method claim 8 recite the storage of predefined personal identity
information unique to the person using the transmitter and
exclusive of any transmitter identifying number and exclusive of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007