Ex Parte Gardner et al - Page 3

                Appeal 2006-2462                                                                             
                Application 09/790,856                                                                       

                      For the reasons set forth by the Examiner at pages 3 and 4 of the                      
                Answer concerning the Examiner’s statement of the rejection as well as the                   
                Examiner’s responsive arguments as to the rejection of claims 1 and 9 at                     
                pages 6 and 7 of the Answer, we sustain the rejection of them and, by                        
                implication, their respective dependent claims since no arguments are                        
                presented to us in the Brief and Reply Brief as to any dependent claims on                   
                appeal.  It goes without saying that the cassettes in Tanaka correspond to the               
                claimed cartridges of the claims on appeal.  Although we recognize that the                  
                statement of the rejection of the Examiner does not identify any particular                  
                portion of Brady, the Examiner’s responsive arguments at pages 6 and 7                       
                expand upon the reasoning of combinability and essentially address                           
                Appellant’s basic argument in the principal Brief on appeal as to this                       
                rejection that the Examiner has exercised impermissible hindsight and that                   
                there is no teaching or suggestion or line of reasoning for the combination as               
                expressed at pages 10 through 12 of the principal brief on appeal.                           
                      The claimed identification device comprising a radio frequency                         
                identification element (RFID) is not taught specifically in Tanaka.   Both                   
                parties recognize, however, that Tanaka contains extensive teachings that the                
                ID device 1 in figure 1 is taught to be an integrated circuit or IC card of                  
                some type.  The Examiner has identified significant expansive teachings at                   
                column 9, lines 14 through 18 of Tanaka (which we extend to line 25),                        
                which are noted by the Examiner at page 7 of the Answer to teach to the                      
                artisan that the term IC card covers all possible forms of storage than may be               
                read by a electromagnetic or optical means as taught at this location in                     
                Tanaka.  The Examiner continues the reasoning that one form of such a                        


                                                     3                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013