Appeal No. 1999-1558
Application No. 08/551,303
Turning next to the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim
15, appellants argue (brief, pages 10 and 11) that the applied
references do not “teach any use of a selected code in either
its transmitter or receiver.” As indicated supra, Kano
discloses the use of a transfer code in the transmitter section
of the pen input device 701 (Figure 7). In the information
processor 702 disclosed by Kano (Figure 7), the processor 6
receives the output from the receiver 5 and extracts the
transfer code from the transmitted signal. Thus, the “selected
code” in Kano’s transmitter and receiver is the transfer code.
For these reasons, the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 15 is sustained. The 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 16 through 19 is sustained because
appellants have chosen to let these claims stand or fall with
claim 15 (brief, pages 5 and 11).
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 20 is reversed
because we agree with the appellants’ argument (brief, pages 11
and 12) that “none of the cited references teach or suggest the
use of a linear feedback shift register as a part of any
encoding means.”
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007