Appeal 2007-0205
Application 09/812,302
is transmitted for identifying that particular device. The Examiner’s reliance
on Zimmermann is, therefore, more relevant to teaching a hand held device
for performing the interrogation (Answer 4).
Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 69 (Reply Br. 16), claim
9 (id. at 9-10), and claim 2 (id. at 17-18) are similar to the points addressed
above. See also FF 4-7. As we find the Examiner’s position with respect to
these claims to be reasonable and supported by factual evidence, we disagree
with Appellants that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, 8-10, 12,
13, 29, 30, 33, 34, 56, 59, 60, and 69.
Claims 4-6, 16-20, 22-25, 43-47, 49, 53, 56-58, 62, 63, 66, 67, and
77-81
Appellants argue that the combination of Lowe with Su is improper
because Lowe cannot store the interrogated information (Reply Br. 19).
The Examiner responds by asserting that the RF identification system of
Lowe is illustrative of the parameters involved in the interrogation of the
sensor devices in Su which use wireless communication (Answer 7). We
agree with the Examiner that combining a known RF identification system
with the monitoring devices of Su provides specific details for the data
collection system of Su and does no more than yield predictable results with
respect to interrogating the sensors and, therefore, would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellants further argue patentability of claims 4-6 based on the long-
felt, yet unmet, need to locate pest control devices, as described in
Appellants’ Specification (Reply Br. 20). While such need may be
described by Appellants, their Specification provides for techniques that are
taught or suggested by the applied prior art. Absent implementation of a
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013