Appeal 2007-0205
Application 09/812,302
Claim 31
With respect to claim 31, Appellants rely on specific embodiments of
Zimmermann and Lowe and assert that Zimmermann teaches away from
using active transponder-based markers since the cost associated with
powering the active markers is described as undesirable in Zimmermann
(Reply Br. 27). We disagree. In fact applying the interrelated teachings of
multiple patents, the effects of demands known to the design community or
present in the marketplace, and the background knowledge possessed by a
person having ordinary skill in the art to the combination of the references at
hand, we find that using active markers is not contrary to the teachings of
Zimmermann. While the active markers are disclosed by Zimmermann to
require an external power source, when cost and feasibility of having such
power source is not a consideration, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have found the combination obvious.
Claims 50-53 and 55
Appellants allege error in the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that
adding a moisture sensor in Su is an alternative configuration to the circuit
interruption arrangement and cannot be modified to include two different
sensor types in the same device (Reply Br. 28-29). However, the Examiner
asserts that the rejection is based on using different types of sensors
disclosed by Su in the same device as suggested by Allen in order to
eliminate the communication means for two separate sensor types (Answer
11-12). We find the Examiner’s position to be supported by factual
evidence (FF 12-13) which indicates desirability of combined sensors in a
compact device. Su allows for sensors for detecting other parameters to be
used in the monitoring device (FF 8). While no particular combination of
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013