Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
its dependent claim 80), each of which includes the feature of
“performing at least one weighted integration” of a signal derived
from an alternating magnetic field generated by an interrogator.3
Although the Examiner asserts (Answer, page 17) that the “divide-
by-64" operation performed by timing control circuit 60 in Carroll
is a “weighted integration” as claimed, we find no support for such
a conclusion. As pointed out by Appellants (Brief, page 68), the
timing control circuit 60 in Carroll is merely a synchronous
counter and has little relevance to the claimed performance of a
weighted integration of a received signal which, at a minimum,
would involve the multiplication by a weighting function of a
received signal during a bit period and the integration of the
result.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3, 41, and
43 as being unpatentable over Chatelot in view
of Kurusu.
Independent claims 41 and 43 are directed to the particulars
of a coupling arrangement for the reader and tag circuitry which
ties together a transformer, a coil, two capacitors and a coil
driver. In making the obviousness rejection, the Examiner asserts
3 The copy of the claims appearing in the appendix to the Brief
mistakenly has claim 80 dependent on claim 7.
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007