Appeal No. 2003-0020
Application No. 09/631,060
expensive . . . than to provide each routing station with
relatively sophisticated decision making capabilities” (column 8,
lines 51-59, of Theimer).
Thus, it is our view that the disclosure of Theimer would
have suggested to the artisan that the location of “most of the
intelligence,” i.e., comparison logic, may be on either the tag
or the fixed station, the choice made in accordance with the
particular application.
Further, appellant argues that Theimer fails to disclose an
interrogator “signalling” that an object should not be delivered
to the present destination, since this function resides in
Theimer’s tag rather than the interrogator. The examiner
recognized that Theimer’s system did not prefer the signalling
from the interrogator and relied both on Theimer’s alternative
disclosure, as well as Turner, to suggest that the interrogator
may do the signalling. For the reasons, supra, we agree that it
would have been equally obvious to have either the tag or the
interrogator do the “signalling.”
While appellant takes issue with the idea of Turner having
any disclosure regarding destination data, as the examiner
explains, at page 5 of the answer, Turner is not primarily relied
on for a teaching of destination information. It is Theimer
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007