Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
contrast to claim 75 discussed supra, contains a positive
limitation in the body of the claim that the bit-timing clock
signal generated by the responder is synchronized to the bit-timing
clock signal “originating with the interrogator.” We do not
disagree with the Examiner (Answer, page 19) that the sync
generator 70 in the transponder of Carroll is synchronized to the
received clock signal from the interrogator. As pointed out by
Appellants (Brief, pages 77 and 78), however, the received bit-
timing clock signal received at the transponder in Carroll from the
interrogator originates in the transponder (which the interrogator
then uses to transmit data to the transponder), and not the
interrogator as claimed.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection, based on Carroll, of independent claim 73,
which includes a limitation directed to the maintaining of
resonance of the claimed resonating circuit, we find ourselves in
agreement with Appellants’ arguments at pages 62-64 of the Brief.
In addressing the claimed resonance maintaining feature, the
Examiner relies on the principle of inherency by asserting (Answer,
page 16) that “[t]his feature is inherent to any receiver that is
attempting to receive data on a carrier ....”
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007