Appeal 2007-0205
Application 09/812,302
positioning device, such as global positioning system, the sensors are
disclosed by Appellants to be positioned in specific locations and mapped to
identify the corresponding location they are monitoring (Figures 1, 10, and
12; Specification 4:10-17, 16:18-30, 17:27-32).
With respect to Appellants’ argument related to the use of the same ID
code in multiple sensors or tags (Reply Br. 21), we note that Lowe provides
the general principals of identifying and locating an object. Lowe’s specific
example related to tires having the same code merely is one of the
embodiments that signifies an option for using tags with identical ID code
when the objects are identical. Nothing in Lowe precludes querying tags
having different ID codes (FF 11).
Appellants further argue that claims 6, 45, and 58 require transmitting
information about the pest control device from the interrogator to a data
collection device, which is absent in the applied prior art (Reply Br. 22). We
disagree with Appellants (id.) that such arrangement would not have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Su, in fact, discloses such
arrangement in Figure 1 by showing a data collection unit (which
interrogates each sensor and collects data) and a remote host computer that
receives data obtained by the sensors (col. 2, ll. 42-46).
With respect to claim 47, Appellants argue that the use of moisture
meter in Su appears to be in terms of alternatives, instead of an addition to
the sensor (Reply Br. 23). We disagree. The use of moisture detector as
disclosed by Su (col. 7, ll. 26-35) describes a mechanism for sensing the
presence of termites as an alternative to the circuit interruption mechanism.
In fact, both mechanisms sense a physical condition that corresponds to the
presence of the pests.
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013