Appeal No. 2006-2284 Page 4
Application No. 09/912,211
rejected under § 103(a) as obvious over Bowers; Francis; Maloney; and U.S. Patent No.
5,995,019 ("Chieu").
II. OPINION
Our opinion addresses the claims in the following order:
• claims 23, 24, 26-32, 42, and 44-50
• claims 33-37, 51, and 52.
A. CLAIMS 23, 24, 26-32, 42, AND 44-50
"Rather than reiterate the positions of the examiner or the appellants in toto, we
focus on a point of contention therebetween." Ex parte Sienel, No. 2005-2429,
2006 WL 1665423, at *1 (B.P.A.I. 2006). The examiner asserts, "Bowers et al. . . .
teaches . . . to modify the transmitted signal energy of a selected frequency to generate
the received signal energy of the selected frequency by resonating at the resonant
frequency of the tag (col. 8 lines 36-43, col. 8 lines 54-60)." (Examiner's Answer at 3.)
The appellants make the following argument.
Bowers teaches that its RFID tags change their resonant frequency before
retuning a signal so that the RFID tags return a signal with a frequency
different from that received. See Bowers at Col. 8, lines 54-63.
Accordingly, Bowers does not teach or suggest "an object of said set of
objects is operable to modify said transmitted signal energy of a selected
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013