Appeal No. 2006-1156
Application No. 09/903,882
Houggy to show a processor programmed to transmit status information in an assigned time slot
and found that it would have been obvious to modify Armstrong’s transponder 150 with the
teachings of Houggy such that Armstrong’s transponder transmits the address in an assigned
time slot upon receiving a Read Tag ID command in order to avoid interference, noting such an
advantage taught by Houggy at column 3, lines 2-4.
Appellant argues that the time slots of Houggy are synchronized to the zero crossings of
the AC power supplied to the master station and that the point in time at which a dimmer in
Houggy transmits its status is determined by the timing of a subsequent zero crossing of the AC
power line, rather than by the passing of a pre-determined period of time after the receipt of a
command, as in claim 9.
For the reasons set forth by the examiner, at pages 19-20 of the answer, reasons which we
adopt as our own, we will sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Quite clearly,
a “‘pre-determined period of time after receipt of an address request signal’” can be interpreted
as set forth by the examiner at pages 19-20 of the answer.
Similarly, we will also sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for the
reasons given by the examiner at page 20 of the answer, wherein the examiner has shown that
the Replace Tag ID of Armstrong may be considered the claimed “‘signal addressed to the
address and comprising a new address.’” Appellant’s argument that Armstrong uses two signals
to reprogram a transponder Tag ID is not persuasive.
The rejection of claim 11 is based on the combination of Armstrong and Houggy with the
addition of Guerrieri. The examiner employs Guerrieri for the teaching of a lamp comprising a
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007