Appeal No. 2002-1695 Page 7
Application No. 08/971,386
Appellants assert (brief, page 5) that the cited prior art
does not teach nor suggest all of the claim limitations of the
present invention. Appellants note (id.) that claim 1 recites,
inter alia, “‘connecting a dual port RF identification tag to a
memory bus of the computer to provide for electrical
communication between the RF identification tag and the
computer.’” Appellants assert (brief, page 6) that:
The Examiner’s reliance on the Anders’ Figure 23
and its accompanying description to teach connecting
a RF identification tag to a computer’s memory bus to
provide a means for communicating between the tag and
the computer is misplaced. Equating wires, without any
more clarification or explanation, to a computer’s
memory bus cannot be logically inferred in light of
Anders’ Figure 23 and its accompanying description.
Furthermore, there is no teachings in Anders to
electrically coupled [sic,] the PTs to the wires that they
are attached to, as required by the present invention.
The PTs in Anders Figure 23 are utilized as they are
disclosed to be, a means to identify the items that
they are attached to; Anders’ PTs are not meant to
interact, i.e., communicate, electrically with their
attached devices.
It is further argued (id.) that Anders, it appears, teaches
attaching a PT to a computer's external components, e.g., the
housing, and not to an internal component, such as the memory
bus, and that there would be no motivation for one utilizing the
teachings of Anders to attach the tag to the computer's memory
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007