Appeal 2007-3462
Application 11/172,223
1 preferred over one that does not do so).
2 We decline to ignore the wherein clause and therefore cannot sustain
3 the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
4 Group III (claims 4, 13 and 146)
5 Applicants argue, with respect to claims 4, 13 and 14, that the
6 description in Black that the Examiner directs attention to does not describe
7 a permanent recordation of a temperature event (FF 28). Neither claim 13
8 nor claim 14 recite a permanent recordation of a temperature event. Rather
9 claim 13 and similarly claim 14 recite that the temperature sensitive
10 indicator is adapted to modify the response signal to be sent from the RFID
11 tag based upon occurrence of the temperature of the portion above a
12 predetermined temperature. Applicants’ argument with respect to why
13 Black does not describe a permanent recordation is not commensurate in
14 scope with the full breadth of claims 13 and 14, and therefore the argument
15 with respect to claim 13 and claim 14 is without merit.
16 Claim 4 recites that the connector performance indicating section is
17 adapted to permanently record the occurrence of the temperature of the
18 portion above the predetermined temperature. Black describes storing
19 temperature for indicating overflow and short-circuit conditions (Black
20 21:17-22) that can be displayed to a user (Black 22:25-35) to indicate if
21 there is a problem. By storing and displaying that an anomaly has occurred,
6 Although Applicants argue claims 4, 13 and 14 each individually, the
arguments are the same with respect to each of these claims. Therefore,
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013