Appeal 2007-3462
Application 11/172,223
1 skill in the art. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a); KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct.
2 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007); Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
3 383 U.S. 1 (1966).
4 Facts relevant to a determination of obviousness include (1) the scope
5 and content of the prior art, (2) any differences between the claimed
6 invention and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in the art and (4) any
7 relevant objective evidence of obviousness or non-obviousness. KSR,
8 82 USPQ2d at 1389, Graham, 383 U.S. at 17-18.
9 E. Analysis
10 Group I (claims 1, 8, 9, 155, 20 and 21)
11 Applicants argue that Black is not analogous art, since Black is
12 directed to a temperature sensor for a pneumatic tire and not for a connector
13 (FF 26(a)). We disagree that Black is not analogous art. It is true that Black
14 describes a temperature sensing circuit in communication with a transponder
15 for use in a tire. However, Black is good for all that it teaches. Black, in the
16 background section, describes that one of ordinary skill knew that the
17 mechanisms of heat-generation in electronic systems were well known and
18 understood, and that any process which consumes power generates heat (FF
19 11).
20 Black also describes that monitoring temperature changes such as
21 excessive temperature rises due to over current or over temperature
5 Although Applicants argue claims 15, 20 and 21 each individually, the
arguments are the same as the arguments made with respect to claim 1.
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013