Appeal No. 2003-0020
Application No. 09/631,060
which discloses the general idea of tracking packages to a
destination. Turner is employed to merely show that a reader, or
interrogator, may process information, i.e., that the
interrogator, rather than the tag, may have most of the
intelligence.
Contrary to appellant’s position, we find that the
combination of Theimer and Turner would have led the artisan to
an interrogator that compares the tag’s transmitted intended
destination with its present destination and to an interrogator
that signals that the tagged object should not be delivered based
on this comparison. Thus, we will sustain the rejection of
claims 4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning to the rejection of claims 2 and 5, appellant
attempts to further distinguish these claims over the applied
references by arguing that these claims are directed to the
interrogator being mounted adjacent the unloading aperture, or
door, of a vehicle. As to claims 3 and 6, these claims are
directed to the interrogator being mounted adjacent the loading
aperture of a vehicle. It is argued that this mounting location
enables the interrogator to signal that an object should not be
unloaded from the vehicle, or loaded into the vehicle before the
object is removed from the vehicle, eliminating the time and
-9–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007