Appeal No. 2003-0020
Application No. 09/631,060
scaled to large systems that allow multiple independent transport
services to cooperate with each other.
While appellant argues that this portion of Theimer merely
mentions the “opposite” of what Theimer teaches, without ever
disclosing that the “opposite” could function at all, Theimer
cannot be interpreted as teaching the placement of the comparison
logic in the interrogator, as in the instant claimed invention.
We agree with the examiner. It is clear to us that while
Theimer chooses to place the comparison logic in the tag, rather
than in the interrogator, at the fixed stations, Theimer clearly
recognizes that the prior art has done the opposite, i.e., placed
the comparison logic at the fixed stations. Thus, the artisan
reading the disclosure of Theimer would have recognized that the
placement of the comparison logic in either the tag or the
interrogator at the fixed station would have been equally
obvious, the choice being made with regard to the particular
purpose. Theimer notes that the placement of the comparison
logic, or “most of the intelligence,” on the tags results in an
advantage in “large systems that allow multiple independent
transport services, such as postal services and airlines, to
cooperate with each other” because it is “generally less
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007