Appeal No. 2004-2228
Application No. 09/652,002
In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-51 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(citations omitted).
Even assuming that Salvati discloses “wireless” transmission in the arrangement
that is required by claims 1 and 17, “wireless” transmission is not necessarily
transmission over a digital mobile network. Thus, the rejection for anticipation of claims
1 and 17 fails for at least the deficiency in showing that a digital mobile network is
necessarily present in Salvati.
Claim 28 does not require a digital mobile network, but is broader in reciting
transmission of the user record via a “wireless communications link” in real-time as the
record is generated by the data recorder. The “wireless communications link” to which
the rejection refers (Answer at 7), however, relates to data sent using “RF or other
wireless technologies” to the data recorder (instrument 180), rather than reception of the
record from the data recorder for wireless transmission. Salvati col. 14, ll. 30-42.
Moreover, the rejection refers to column 10, lines 1 through 7 of Salvati -- the TFT
display 84 on the diagnostic instrument 42 (Fig. 6) -- as corresponding to the “user
record in real time” as it is generated by the data recorder. (Answer at 7.) At best, the
reference might suggest a link, as a record is generated in real time, between
instrument 184 and video monitor 204. Salvati col. 11, ll. 16-23; col. 13, ll. 6-14; Fig. 9.
Salvati does not disclose -- and the system appears incompatible with -- transmission of
records, as they are generated, to a central server (network center 200, Fig. 9),
regardless of the details of the physical link. See id. at col. 12, ll. 16-31.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007