Appeal No. 2002-1217
Application No. 09/006,808
With respect to independent claim 7, the examiner and appellants set forth the
same rationales. Since claim 7 contains similar limitations as independent claim 1
which are not taught by the AAPA, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 7 and its
dependent claims 8-10.
With respect to independent claim 11, the examiner and appellants set forth
similar rationales, but the claim language does not recite activation of the receiver.
Appellants argue that independent claim 11 includes an additional limitation of “detection
circuitry . . .” (See brief at pages 6-7.) Appellants argue that “it is possible for the
detection circuitry to activate one of the receiver sections. In this way, the appropriate
receiver section is activated to process the data signal.” (See brief at page 7.) We find
no support in the language of independent claim 11 for this argument since no activation
is recited. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive. Since claim 11 does not contain
the same limitation we found lacking above, and appellants have not shown error in the
examiner’s rejection, we will sustain the rejection of independent claim 11.
With respect to dependent claim 12, the examiner and appellants set forth the
same rationales. Since claim 12 contains similar limitations as independent claim 1 with
respect to the activation of the receiver which are not taught by the AAPA, we will not
sustain the rejection of claim 12.
With respect to independent claim 13, the examiner and appellants set forth the
same rationales. Since claim 13 contains similar limitations as independent claim 1
which are not taught by the AAPA, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 13.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007