Appeal No. 1999-2841
Application No. 08/655,133
stored satisfies said query.” Lemelson describes querying of the remote unit by the
base; see column 3, lines 48 through 51, column 4, lines 38 through 40, and column 5,
lines 3 through 6. We decline appellant’s invitation to read limitations from the written
description into the claim such that the claim requires a query (or a search) of a
database. We sustain the section 102 rejection of claim 24 as being anticipated by
Lemelson.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claim 24 as being anticipated by Lemelson is affirmed. The
rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 12, 19-23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being
anticipated by Lemelson is reversed. The rejection of claims 9 and 13-15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lemelson is reversed. The rejection of claims
16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Lemelson and Drori is
reversed.
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-10 and 12-26 is thus affirmed-in-part.
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007