Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim
75 based on Carroll. Appellants reiterate their contention (Brief,
pages 73 and 74) that Carroll does not disclose the embedding of a
bit-timing clock signal in the alternating magnetic field generated
at the reader. For all of the reasons discussed previously, we
find such argument to be unpersuasive since there is no claimed
requirement that the bit-timing clock signal originate at the
reader. We also find no argument from Appellants that would
convince us of any error in the Examiner’s position (Answer, page
18) that Carroll discloses the control of the start of a
transmitted bit sequence by a bit-timing signal since the disclosed
transmitted bit sequence follows the bit-timing signal (e.g.,
Carroll, Figure 4A).
Further, with respect to claims 70, 71, and 75, we find to be
unpersuasive Appellants’ arguments which assert that the claims are
set forth in step-plus-function format and that the Examiner has
not properly interpreted the limitations of the appealed claims in
accordance with the decision in In re Donaldson, 16 F.3d 1189,
1191, 29 USPQ2d 1845, 1848-49 (Fed. Cir. 1994). The Federal
Circuit has cautioned that, in order for elements in a method claim
to be construed as step–plus-function limitations, steps plus
function without acts must be present. “If we were to construe
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007