Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
burden of establishing, by convincing arguments and/or evidence, a
prima facie case of obviousness. With regard to the issue of
obviousness in the present factual situation, we find particularly
compelling Appellants’ arguments (Brief, page 119) that, although
Carroll found the need to use a tuning capacitor in the tag
circuitry 40, he found no such need and did not do so in the reader
circuitry 10.
Accordingly, since all of the claim limitations are not taught
or suggested by the applied prior art, it is our opinion that the
Examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness with
respect to appealed independent claim 5. Therefore, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent
claim 5, nor of claims 6-13 dependent thereon.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of independent claim 25 based on Carroll, we do not
sustain this rejection as well. We agree with Appellants that, in
contrast to the requirements of claim 25, Carroll does not disclose
the use of frequency shift keying (FSK) to transmit data from the
transponder/tag 40 to the reader/controller 10 but, rather,
utilizes a phase shift keying technique (PSK). Further, to
whatever extent the Examiner is suggesting the interchangeability
25
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007