Appeal No. 2006-2284 Page 12
Application No. 09/912,211
preprogrammed information. We are unpersuaded by the appellants' argument, (App.
Br. at 11), however, that each tag responds to a different interrogation frequency.
To the contrary, we find that the tags respond to the same interrogation frequency.
Having each tag respond to the same interrogation frequency, for example, enables a
plurality of articles in a collection bin 112 to be interrogated "all at once." (Col. 13, l. 21.)
2. Shielding the Interior of a Container
The examiner finds, "Bowers et al. teaches a method for identifying a subset of
objects within a set of objects in a container (col. 12 lines 50-65)," (Examiner's Answer
at 6), and "Francis et al. in an art related object tracking system teaches the use of
electromagnetic shielding to prevent reading of the by extraneous source (col. 9
lines 49-65)." (Id. at 7.) He makes the following additional findings.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to shield the
interior of the container from extraneous external signals in Bowers et al.
as evidenced by Francis et al. because Bowers et al. suggests
interrogating objects in a container and Francis et al. teaches the use of
electromagnetic shielding to prevent reading of the by extraneous source
and further limit the interference from other electromagnetic sources.
(Id.) The appellants argue that "the Examiner cites RF shielding in general, but does
not demonstrate that the cited art teaches or suggests, 'shielding the interior of said
container' as recited by claim 33. . . ." (Reply Br. at 7.)
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013