Appeal No. 2006-1156
Application No. 09/903,882
that sends a transmit address request signal to neighborhood devices and uses a first address
received from the devices in response to the address request signal. That address may be labeled
ADDR1. This step is performed prior to any later transmission of an address inquiry signal to
address ADDR1 of the first device because the controller did not yet have the address ADDR1 of
the first device until after the response to the address request signal. At this point, the
combination of Kowalski/Armstrong suggested the transmission of an address inquiry signal to
the address of the first device, as well as the remaining elements of the system of claims 1 and 2
for the reasons set forth supra with regard to claim 1.
With regard to claim 3, appellant argues that while the examiner asserts that actions (a)–
(d) are suggested by Kowalski in order for terminal T to select other modules that have yet to
communicate with terminal T, and that action (f) is suggested by Armstrong’s transmitting a
Reselect Tag ID command, the examiner does not assert that Armstrong teaches repeating action
(e), determining whether more than one device responds to an address inquiry signal sent to a
specified address.
We agree with the examiner (answer-page 15) that because Armstrong teaches that the
process of transmitting a Reselect Tag ID command continues until each transponder has a
unique Tag ID, a step (e), as recited in claim 3, i.e., determining whether one or more additional
responses to the address inquiry signal are received from one or more of the other devices, must
also be repeated in Armstrong.
Accordingly, we will sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007