Appeal 2007-3462
Application 11/172,223
1 Black describes permanent recordation of a temperature above a
2 predetermined temperature as recited. Applicants have failed to demonstrate
3 otherwise. The Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 13 and 14 are sustained.
4 Group IV (claims 5 and 17)
5 Claim 5 depends from independent claim 1. Claim 17 depends from
6 independent claim 15. Both recite that the RFID tag comprises multiple
7 tags. The Examiner found that mere duplication of parts is without
8 patentable significance, citing to In re Harza, 124 USPQ 378, 380, 274 F.2d
9 669, 671 (CCPA 1960) (FF 23).
10 In response, Applicants argue that claims 5 and 17 require multiple
11 tags that allow multiple signals at different frequencies and at different
12 temperatures and is not merely a duplication of parts as asserted by the
13 Examiner (FF 29). Claims 5 and 17 recite that the RFID tag comprises
14 multiple RFID tags and nothing more. Therefore, Applicants’ argument that
15 claims 5 and 17 require allowing multiple signals at different frequencies
16 and temperatures is not commensurate in scope with the breadth of claims 5
17 and 17 and is without merit. Accordingly, the rejections of claims 5 and 17
18 are sustained.
19 Group V (claim 19)
20 Applicants’ sole argument with respect to claim 19 is that the features
21 of claim 19 are not disclosed or suggested in the cited art (FF 30). The
22 statement alone is not sufficient to demonstrate error in the Examiner’s
claims 4, 13 and 14 stand or fall together.
17
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013