Appeal No. 2003-0020
Application No. 09/631,060
the interrogator comparing whether the intended destination
contained in the response RF signal received from the tag is the
same as the first destination and, if not, the interrogator
signaling that the object should not be delivered to the first
destination.
The examiner relies on the following references:
Theimer et al. (Theimer) 5,627,517 May 6, 1997
(filed Nov. 1, 1995)
Turner et al. (Turner) 5,793,305 Aug. 11, 1998
(filed Sep. 29, 1995)
Claims 2-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Theimer in view of Turner.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set forth
in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary skill in
the pertinent art would have been led to modify the prior art or
to combine prior art references to arrive at the claimed
-3–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007