Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
by the Examiner to Appellants’ arguments, we are constrained on the
record before us to reverse the anticipatory rejection of claims 37
and 38.1 Similarly, the rejection of claim 40 is also reversed
since the Examiner has never explained how the circuitry disclosed
by Buchele satisfies the language of claim 40 which requires, inter
alia, “a two-winding transformer associated with each transistor.”
The 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims
70, 71, and 73-80 based on Carroll.
In addressing the limitations set forth in independent claim
70, we note that the Examiner makes reference to the illustrations
in Carroll’s Figures 3 and 4B as disclosing the claimed alternating
magnetic field embedding of a bit-timing clock signal. Appellants’
arguments in response (Brief, pages 51-54) assert that, unlike the
claimed invention in which a bit timing clock signal is embedded in
an alternating magnetic field generated by the reader, the
transponder 40, i.e., the tag, in Carroll embeds a clock signal in
the carrier transmitted from the controller 10, i.e., the reader.
According to Appellants (id., at 52), when Carroll’s controller 10
receives a transmission from transponder 40, it extracts the bit
1 Since the Examiner has not addressed the issue of obviousness to the
skilled artisan of interchangeably using P- and N-channel devices according to
particular circuit considerations, we have no such rejection before us and,
accordingly, we decline to rule on the merits of such a rejection.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007