Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
controller is responding to bit-timing control signals generated
at the transponder by utilizing such signal information and
embedding it in the signals transmitted back to the transponder
(Carroll, Figure 4B).
Similarly, we find no error in our original decision
affirming the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 75
based on Carroll. Again we refer to the illustration in
Carroll’s Figure 4B along with the accompanying disclosure at
column 16, lines 1-10 which describes the transmission of a
command word 112 from the controller 10 to transponder 40 which
incorporates, i.e., embeds, a synchronization block 114.
Further, as described at column 16, lines 46-52 of Carroll, the
sending of the command word 112 from the controller to the
transponder is synchronized with the bit timing of the
configuration word 100 from the transponder.
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ argument asserting
that our original decision misinterpreted Judge Rader’s
concurring opinion in the Seal-Flex case as it relates to an In
re Donaldson analysis of method claims. We find no error in our
finding that the method steps set forth in method claims 70, 71,
and 75 recite “acts” and not “functions” which would invoke the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007