Appeal No. 2006-1156
Application No. 09/903,882
a randomize address signal addressed to a specific address. We disagree. In Armstrong, in
Paragraph [0062], in the Reselect Tag ID mode, a command is issued to select a new Tag ID
when it is found that there are duplicate Tag IDs. This is a randomization step since each
transponder randomly selects a new Tag ID in response to that command.
Having considered each of appellant’s arguments regarding the rejection of independent
claim 1, and having found the arguments unpersuasive of nonobviousness, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
With regard to claim 2, appellant argues that although Kowalski may teach a controller
sending a transmit address request signal to the devices in a neighborhood group, any established
communication will be with the addressed module because the reference assumes a system
containing uniquely addressed modules. Moreover, argues appellant, if Kowalski is combined
with Armstrong, a person would establish a separate interrogation zone in which to detect the
duplicate data of more than one module having the same identification data. Appellant notes that
this would not result in using a first address received from neighborhood devices in response to
an address request signal as address ADDR1 of a first device in the neighborhood, transmitting
an address inquiry signal to address ADDR1, and determining whether more than one response is
received to the address inquiry signal, as required by claim 2.
We will sustain the rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Kowalski clearly teaches (see the abstract, for example) the concept of selecting a
module that responds first to a signal sent by a controller. Thus, Kowalski taught a controller
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007