Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
of FSK and PSK transmission techniques, we find no evidence
forthcoming from the Examiner that would support such an assertion.
We do agree with the Examiner, however, that the limitations
of independent claims 47 and 56 are taught by Carroll. Appellants’
arguments in response (Brief, pages 140, 151, and 152) refer to
similar arguments made with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection of claim 70 based on Carroll, which arguments we
found to be unpersuasive as discussed supra. As discussed
previously, it is our view that the transponder 40 in Carroll
receives from the reader 10 a transmitted signal which has embedded
therein a bit-timing clock signal, regardless of the fact that such
bit-timing clock signal may have ultimately originated at the
transponder. Similarly, Appellants’ argument that Carroll does not
receive a bit-timing clock signal originating at the reader upon
which the transponder synchronizes its own bit-timing clock signal
is without merit since the claim language does not require that the
bit-timing clock signal originate at the reader. We further find
no error in the Examiner’s position (Answer, pages 23 and 24) that
the sync element 70 in the transponder 40 of Carroll synchronizes
the transponder bit-timing clock signal with the received periodic
bit signal from the reader with start/end points which embed the
bit-timing signal into the driving signal.
26
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007