Appeal No. 1997-1632 Page 8
Application No. 08/138,555
I. Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Rejections of Claims 45, 46, 48, 50-53, 55-60,
68-70, and 73-80
Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or appellants in toto, we
address the two points of contention therebetween. First, the examiner asserts,
"[c]laims 45, 46, 48, 50-53, 55-60, 68-70, 73-80, [sic] are rejected . . . over claims 1 and
2 of U. S. Patent No. 5245652 alone. . . ." (Paper No. 46 at 3 (emphasis added).) The
appellants argue, "[n]othing in the claims of the '652 patent suggests providing data by
radio, as specified by each of the rejected claims." (Paper No. 47 at 24.)
“Analysis begins with a key legal question -- what is the invention claimed?”
Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg. Co., 810 F.2d 1561, 1567, 1 USPQ2d 1593, 1597 (Fed.
Cir. 1987). Here, independent claim 45 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: "receiving the modulated radio frequency signal at each of the plurality of
first units. . . ." Similarly, independent claim 68 specifies in pertinent part the following
limitations: “a radio transmission from the single transmitter. . . .” Similarly, independent
claim 68 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: “a radio transmission from
the single transmitter. . . .” Also similarly, independent claim 73 specifies in pertinent
part the following limitations: “a receiver adapted to receive electromagnetic radio
frequency signals. . . .” Further similarly, independent claim 80 specifies in pertinent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007