Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 14-17,
61, and 64-68 as being unpatentable over Carroll in
view of McFarlane.
Dependent claims 14-17, 61, and 64-68 are directed to the
feature of transmitting data between a reader and tag utilizing
combined frequency-shift and phase-shift coding techniques. In
addressing the limitations of these claims, the Examiner adds
McFarlane, which describes a combined frequency-shift and phase-
shift keying system, to the disclosure of Carroll.
After reviewing the McFarlane reference in light of the
arguments of record, we find Appellants’ arguments to be
persuasive. With respect to claims 14 and 61, we agree with
Appellants that, although the Examiner asserts (Answer, page 26)
correspondence between the illustrated system in Figure 2a of
McFarlane and that claimed, we fail to find any support for such a
conclusion. As pointed out by Appellants, the fact that McFarlane
may disclose that a driving signal may have one of two frequency
values and one of two phase values, does not satisfy the claim
language which requires that the phase of a driving signal have one
of two frequency values and one of two phase values.
Similarly, it is our view that McFarlane’s disclosure of a
combined frequency-shift and phase-shift keying system does not
disclose the particular features of claims 15-17 and 64-68 which
29
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007