Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
claim limitation accomplishes, i.e., its underlying
function, in relation to what is accomplished by the
other limitations and the claim as a whole.
(Emphasis in original).
With the above discussion in mind, it is our view that the
underlying function set forth in claims 70 and 71, and what is
accomplished by the claim as a whole, is the interrogation of a
tag. Further, it is our opinion that, contrary to Appellants’
contention (Brief, pages 55 and 60), the method steps of “embedding
a bit-timing clock signal” (claim 70) and “generating a bit-timing
clock signal” (claim 71) do not set forth “functions” but, rather
recite “acts” which, when considered with the other method steps
such as “generating an alternating magnetic field,” “embedding
data,” and “extracting data,” describe how the underlying function
of tag interrogation is performed. We take a similar view with
respect to method claim 75 and consider the underlying function to
be the responding by a responder (tag) to the data transmitted from
the reader. Similar to the discussion with regard to claims 70 and
71, we consider the method step of “generating a bit-timing clock
signal” to merely recite an “act” which, when considered with the
other method steps, describes how the underlying function of tag
response to transmitted data from a reader is performed.
We do not sustain, however, the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 76 (nor its dependent claim 79) which, in
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007