Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
that the claimed clock signal generating feature is met by the
encoder 70 in the transponder of Carroll since the body of the
claim does not require that the clock signal generation originate
at the reader.
With regard to the clock signal generation feature, claim 71
also differs from claim 70 by including in the claim preamble
language which recites that a bit timing signal generated by the
tag is synchronized with a bit timing signal “originating with the
interrogator.” Although we disagreed with the Examiner’s treatment
of claim preamble language with respect to previously discussed
claim 32 and 72, we agree with the Examiner that the language of
claim 71 does not require that limitations in the preamble be given
patentable weight. A review of the limitations in claim 71 reveals
that a step of “generating a bit-timing clock signal” (our
emphasis) is set forth. There is no clear indication or
requirement that such a bit-timing clock signal corresponds to the
bit-timing clock signal referenced in the preamble. In other
words, the preamble of claim 71 which sets forth a specific manner
in which an interrogated tag responds to an interrogation, is a
mere intended use of the claimed method of interrogating a tag set
forth in the body of the claim.
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007