Appeal 2006-1914
Application 09/764,609
1 instrument only when the activation button is activated. (See,
2 e.g. ¶0104.) (Reply Br 4)
3
4 As argued by applicant throughout the prosecution of this
5 application, the wireless communication between the smart
6 instrument and the computer system was not obvious at the
7 time of the invention due at least in part to the fact that it was
8 not thought a wireless communication system would be
9 adequate to transfer the large volume of data. (Reply Br. 4-5)
10
11 The Lack Of Any Suggestion of a Wireless Data
12 Communication Link Between the Smart Instrument and the
13 Computer System in Chader et al. is Evidence that Such
14 Wireless Data Communication Was Not Considered an
15 Obvious Alternative to the Hard Wired Data
16 Communication System Disclosed Therein. (Emphasis
17 original) (Reply Br. 5)
18
19 [T]the Rule 132 declaration of Dr. Jay Klarsfeld states that the
20 wireless, hardwired issue is so important that a number of
21 companies have abandoned hardwired active optical systems in
22 favor of passive wireless systems, and have not developed
23 wireless active tracking devices as claimed in the present
24 application. (Reply Br. 7)
25
26 [T]hese Rule 132 Affidavits provide direct evidence that the
27 device claimed in this application meets a long felt and
28 previously unmet need in the industry. (Reply Br. 7)
29
30 With regard to the rejection of the claims over Chader in view of
31 Acker, Appellants contend that:
32 The examiner has not shown any motivation that would lead
33 one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Chader
34 with the teaching of Acker. (Br. 7.)
35
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013