Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
We do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection,
based on Carroll, of dependent claims 48-50, each of which contains
limitations directed to the weighted integration feature. As
previously discussed with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) rejection, based on Carroll, of independent claims 74 and
77, we find no support on the record before us that the timing
control circuit 60 or the address register 62 perform a weighted
integration operation as asserted by the Examiner.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection, based on Carroll, of dependent claims 51-55, which are
directed to the particulars of a bit-identifying operation and the
adjustment of bit-start indicators. As asserted by Appellants
(Brief, pages 148-150), the Examiner has never attempted to show
how the disclosure of Carroll teaches or suggests the claimed
limitations, and, accordingly, no prima facie case of obviousness
has been established.
We do, however, sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection, based on Carroll, of dependent claims 57-60, which are
directed to the particulars of the phase-shift coding technique
used for transmitting data from the tag to the reader. As asserted
by the Examiner (Answer, page 25), the language of claims 57-60
simply does not require the interpretation urged by Appellant at
27
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007