Appeal No. 1997-0199
Application No. 08/199,480
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Brief and Answer for the
respective details thereof.
OPINION
It is our view, after consideration of the record before
us, that the collective evidence relied upon and the level of
skill in the particular art would not have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art the obviousness of the invention as
set forth in claims 1-47. Accordingly, we reverse.
With respect to independent claims 1, 22, and 43, the
Examiner proposes to modify the vehicle parameter monitoring
system of Higgs by relying on Dunn to supply the missing
teachings of remote source interrogation and mounting of the
monitoring transponder on the vehicle tire. In the Examiner’s
view (Answer, page 4), the skilled artisan would have found it
obvious to combine the two references “...in order to sense
various tire abnormalities.” Bowler is further added to the
on for the rejection of this grouping of claims. It is
apparent, however, from the Examiner’s reference to the
rejection of independent claims 1 and 22 (which included
Bowler as a prior art reference) and the statement at page 5
of the Answer, that Bowler is properly included as a prior art
reference for this rejection.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007