Appeal No. 2001-1936
Application 09/049,478
We now consider the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of
claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 11, 12, and 14 as being anticipated by
Matsui. As to this rejection we sustain it in light of the
examiner's brief statement of the rejection at the bottom of
page 4 of the answer, which has been further amplified by the
examiner's responsive arguments at pages 7 and 8. It is these
responsive arguments that fully address the concerns raised by
appellants at pages 10-12 of the principal brief on appeal.
Whether the examiner's reliance upon Matsui may have been
properly traversed by appellants as being premature is a
petitionable matter and not appealable as noted by the examiner
at the bottom of page 7 of the answer. With respect to
appellants' complaints that the examiner has not fully identified
the corresponding features of the claims and the noted figures
and textural portions of Matsui relied upon by the examiner, the
examiner has set forth a detailed correspondence of certain
representative claims on appeal at page 8 of the answer.
Significantly, appellants' assertion at the bottom of page 11 of
the principal brief on appeal that Matsui is silent as to the use
of RF signals is answered by the examiner at the bottom of page 8
by noting at least three locations in Matsui that do teach RF
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007