Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
pages 153-158 of the Brief. We find no error in the Examiner’s
stated position that the phase-shift coding procedure disclosed by
Carroll, in which a “O” is transmitted during a first phase of a
bit portion of a signal and a “1" is transmitted during a second
phase of the bit portion of the signal, satisfies the requirements
of the claims.
Turning to a consideration of the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection, based on Carroll, of dependent claims 62-64, we
do not sustain this rejection for essentially the same reason as
previously discussed with regard to independent claim 25. As with
claim 25, dependent claims 62-64 are directed to a frequency-shift
keying procedure for transmitting data from the tag to the reader.
In our view, regardless of the merits of Appellants’ arguments
directed to the significance of the presence of “periodic signal”
language in claims 62-64, the disclosure of Carroll, which utilizes
phase-shift keying to transmit data from the transponder/tag 40 to
the reader/controller 10, does not satisfy the frequency-shift
keying requirements of claims 62-64.
28
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007