Appeal 2007-0205
Application 09/812,302
transmission and collection of data related to each sensor that provides
information regarding their location in relation to a zone.
Claim 68
Appellants, in arguing the patentability of claim 68 (Reply Br. 11),
argue that Su adds toxicant to the sensor if needed and therefore cannot
constitute installing a pest control device with a pesticide and a wireless
circuit, and then locating it. We disagree with that characterization and
point to FF 8. The teachings in Su do not preclude adding the toxicant
delivery device to the monitoring device before installing and monitoring for
termites. In that regard, Su allows for the monitoring and delivery of
toxicant steps to be performed simultaneously (col. 3, ll. 36-37), which
requires the toxicant be added to the monitoring device before it is installed.
Based on our analysis above and the teachings of Su, we agree with the
Examiner’s position (Answer 14) that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have installed the monitoring device and the bait in one step when delivery
of toxicant is also needed (FF 8).
Claims 2, 3, 8-10, 12, 13, 29, 30, 33, 34, 56, 59, 60, and 69
Appellants argue that the combination of the references provides no
teachings related to a passive RF transmitter configured to transmit a unique
identifier in response to an interrogation signal (Reply Br. 14). The
Examiner’s position appears to be based on the fact that Su provides for
identifying the sensor in response to interrogation (Answer 4), which allows
the information about the zones containing at least one sensor be checked
(FF 1-3). We agree with the Examiner. The interrogation of the monitoring
devices yields information about each device within their corresponding
zone (FF 4-5), which indicates that some kind of identification information
11
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013