Appeal No. 2003-0020
Application No. 09/631,060
The examiner also notes that, in accordance with column 8,
lines 45+, of Theimer, the artisan would have recognized obvious
variants of placing the intelligence on either the tags or at the
fixed locations.
With regard to claims 4 and 7, wherein verification is made
as to whether an object that has been transported to a first
destination has reached its intended destination, and wherein an
RFID transceiver tag is mounted on the object, appellant argues
that there is an advantage in locating the comparison logic in
the interrogator so that the logic is not required in the tag.
This minimizes the cost of the tag.
Appellant contends that Theimer’s tag includes the required
logic to compare current destination with the intended
destination and that this is the “opposite” of the claimed
invention, in which the comparison logic resides in the
interrogator and, while the examiner recognizes this difference,
the examiner’s position that column 8, lines 49-50, of Theimer
suggests that the opposite is also possible, is in error.
Column 8, lines 49-50, of Theimer states that another
“advantage of placing most of the intelligence on the tags, as
opposed to at fixed routing stations,” is that the design can be
-6–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007