Appeal 2006-2462
Application 09/790,856
In association with the showings of the figures 5 through 7
embodiments of Brady, this reference compellingly teaches at column 7, line
27 through column 8, line 25 with respect to these figures that each cassette
may contain plural RFID devices and, correspondingly, that the reading
system may therefore contain plural RFID readers. As to the showing in
figures 5 and 6, the noted portions of Brady teach that one or both ends of
the leaders 152 in these figures may contain or have affixed thereto
respective RFID devices. The same is true by implication to the use of these
elements within each spool 114 in figure 7. Dual reading operations are
taught at the top of column 8 with respect to the situations where both RFID
transponders are attached to the respective portions of the cassette in figures
5 through 7.
In light of the above, we find that the artisan clearly would have
found it obvious within 35 U.S.C. § 103 the subject matter of independent
claims 18 and 52 on appeal. By extension therefore the subject matter of
dependent claims 33 and 57, which recite specifically a second reader
mounted to at least one storage slot, also would have been obvious as well.
In view of the foregoing, the decision of the Examiner rejecting all
claims on appeal, claims 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11 through 15, 18 through
21, 30 through 33, 36 and 52 through 57, is affirmed.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013