Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
that there is no bit-timing clock signal embedded in the signal
received from the controller by the transponder in Carroll,
arguments we found to be unpersuasive for all of the reasons
discussed supra.
With respect to claim 57, we also find no error in the
conclusion reached in our original decision that the Examiner
reasonably interpreted the broadly set forth claim language as
not distinguishing over the Manchester encoded phase shift keying
technique used by Carroll in which “zeros” and “ones” are
transmitted in different bit portions of a signal. We do agree
with Appellants, however, that the Examiner improperly grouped
claims 58-60 with claim 57 and pointedly ignored the separate
arguments of Appellants with respect to these claims in the
Brief. Since there is no evidence of record presented by the
Examiner as to what teachings or suggestions in Carroll would
support the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection as related to
the particular driving signal modulation features of these
claims, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 58-60.
CONCLUSION
Appellants’ request for rehearing is granted to the extent
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007