Appeal No. 2006-3182
Application No. 09/883,963
We also note that at page 6, paragraphs 25 and 26, Appellants’ specification states the
following:
[0025] More exactly, the correlation value varies, as a function of the phase shift
between the pseudo-random code carried by the signal received and the pseudo-
random code of the shift register 13, in the manner which is illustrated in Figure
2. It takes its maximum value when the two codes are perfectly synchronized and
becomes a minimum for time shifts of at least one bit period. For time shifts of
less than one bit period, it varies linearly between its maximum value and its
minimum value.
[0026] Thus, there is substantially correlation between the two pseudo-random
codes, for as long as the code received is shifted in time by less than half a bit
period with respect to the code of the shift register 13 of the badge 2.
Thus, Appellants’ representative claim 12 does require synchronizing a received pseudo
code with a corresponding code already stored in memory through a substantial correlation
process within a time shift less than required for an intermediate transmission to intercept and
retransmit a response/interrogation signal.
Now, the question before us is what the combination of Lambropoulos, Bates and Ziemer
would have taught to one of ordinary skill in the art? To answer this question, we find the
following facts:
1. At column 7, lines 6 through 19, Lambropoulos states the following:
Transceiver A receives the interrogation signal processes it in the manner
already described and, if the interrogation code received from transceiver C
matches that which is prestored at the register 52 in transceiver A, transmits a
reply signal back to transceiver C. Upon receipt of the reply signal, transceiver C
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007