Appeal No. 2006-1156
Application No. 09/903,882
Houggy et al. (Houggy) 5,838,226 Nov. 17, 1998
Winder et al. (Winder) 6,133,832 Oct. 17, 2000
Kowalski et al. (Kowalski) 6,337,619 Jan. 08, 2002
(filed Nov. 06, 1998)
Guerrieri et al. (Guerrieri) 2002/0084890 Jul. 04, 2002
(filed Dec. 28, 2000)
Armstrong et al. (Armstrong) 2002/0175805 Nov. 28, 2002
(filed Nov. 29, 2000)
Claims 1-4 and 9-17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness,
the examiner offers Kowalski and Armstrong with regard to claims 1-3, 12, and 13, adding
Winder with regard to claims 4 and 14-16. With regard to claims 9 and 10, the examiner offers
Armstrong and Houggy, adding Guerrieri with regard to claim 11. The examiner offers
Kowalski, Armstrong, and Guerrieri with regard to claim 17.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the respective positions of appellant and
the examiner.
OPINION
While the examiner recognizes that Kowalski does not describe a step of sending an
interrogation signal or address inquiry signal to determine the presence of modules having a
specific address, “the common knowledge of controllers transmitting interrogation signals
addressed to specific transponders is taken to be admitted prior art since the applicant failed to
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007