Appeal 2007-0205
Application 09/812,302
ANALYSIS
Claims 1 and 7
After a review of Su and considering the arguments presented by
Appellants and the Examiner, we agree with the Examiner that the pest
monitoring system disclosed by Su anticipates the subject matter of claims 1
and 7. As pointed out by the Examiner (Answer 12), Su discloses using
wireless communication between the sensors and the data collection unit (FF
4-6). Contrary to Appellants’ assertion (Reply Br. 10), the collection of data
is performed in the same manner as the hard-wire sensors and the only
change would be related to the manner in which the data is transmitted.
We also disagree with Appellants (id.) that the claimed locating of the
sensors is different from the information provided by the sensors in Su. In
that regard, the monitoring device of Su interrogates the sensors for
infestation evidence (FF 3) and also receives information regarding the
location of the sensor (FF 4). The information received from a sensor
combined with its position in a zone provides sufficient information for
locating the sensor in that zone. This is consistent with Appellants’
disclosed embodiment that based on a map of the devices installed in a
building, the collected data indicate the presence of pests in the location
corresponding to that device (Specification 16:18-30). In other words,
knowing which zone the sensor is supposed to be positioned in, the wireless
communication from that sensor indicates not only its presence, but also the
location of the sensor and the activities it monitors.
Therefore, based on our analysis above, we find that the sensor
arrangement of Su anticipates the claimed subject matter by disclosing
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013