Appeal No. 2006-2284 Page 11
Application No. 09/912,211
Here, claim 33 recites in pertinent part the following limitations: "a plurality of said
objects responsive to said selected frequency. . . ." Giving the representative claim the
broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require that plural objects modify an
interrogation signal transmitted at a frequency to generate a return signal. Unlike claims
23 and 42, however, claim 33 does not require that the return signal have the same
frequency as the interrogation signal.
b. Obviousness Determination
The question of obviousness is "based on underlying factual determinations
including . . . what th[e] prior art teaches explicitly and inherently. . . ." In re Zurko,
258 F.3d 1379, 1383, 59 USPQ2d 1693, 1696 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (citing Graham v. John
Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ 459, 467 (1966); In re Dembiczak,
175 F.3d 994, 998, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Napier, 55 F.3d 610,
613, 34 USPQ2d 1782, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, as mentioned regarding claims 23, 24, 26-32, 42, and 44-50, Bowers
attaches an RFID tag to each article 22 in its library. As also aforementioned, in
response to receipt of an interrogation signal, which is necessarily transmitted at a
frequency, each article's tag generates a return signal containing a packet of
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013