Appeal No. 2006-3182
Application No. 09/883,963
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.
It is therefore our view, after consideration of the record before us, that the evidence relied
upon and the level of skill in the particular art would not have suggested to the ordinarily skilled
artisan the invention as set forth in representative claim 12. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 12 through 26.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we have not sustained the Examiner’s decision
rejecting claims 12 through 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we reverse.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
MAHSHID D. SAADAT )
Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
JEAN R. HOMERE )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JRH:pgc
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007