Appeal No. 2006-1156
Application No. 09/903,882
Moreover, at page 11 of the answer, the examiner proffers evidence in the form of two
U.S. Patents (5,798,693 and 5,952,922) alleged to show that “transmitting an address inquiry
signal to an address” was well known in the art, and appellant never addresses this showing by
the examiner even though appellant did file a reply brief.
Accordingly, we accept as true the examiner’s allegation that “transmitting an address
inquiry signal to an address” was well known in the art.
Appellant also argued that the examiner failed to cite a reference that describes
determining whether more than one response is received to an address inquiry signal. Again, we
disagree. At the bottom of page 9 (Paragraph [0063]) of Armstrong, it is indicated that if it is
found that the Tag ID of a particular transponder is identical to an existing Tag ID, then a
Replace Tag ID command is given. Now, while Armstrong is not specific on exactly how it is
determined that two Tag IDs are identical, other than that a Tag ID is identical to an existing Tag
ID stored in memory in host computer 100, it would appear reasonable, and obvious, that a
device was addressed and responsive to that addressing, the device responded, with that device
having the same address, or Tag ID, as another responding device. In any event, Armstrong is
clearly suggesting that there is more than one response to some type of address inquiry signal,
and it is determined that the Tag IDs of these responding units are identical, at which point a
command is given for one of the duplicate Tag IDs to be replaced. Thus, there is some
determination in Armstrong of whether there is more than one response to an address inquiry
signal.
Appellant also asserts that the examiner has failed to cite a reference that teaches sending
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007