Appeal No. 96-3964
Application No. 08/225,228
Therefore, we will consider the rejection against independent
claim 10 as representative of all the claims on appeal.
With respect to the rejection of representative claim 10
as unpatentable over the combination of Rossi and Olsen,
Appellants assert (Brief, pages 4 and 5) a lack of suggestion
or motivation in the references for combining or modifying
teachings to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. The
Examiner has responded (Answer, pages 4 and 8) with a
reference to column 4, lines 50-55 of Rossi which states:
Thus, when the transponder tag
is described herein as "attached"
to the carrier, it is meant to
include any method of attachment
which will allow the transponder
tag to be securely associated with
a particular carrier so that it may
be used in this manner.
The Examiner asserts the obviousness of the combination of
Rossi and Olsen at page 5 of the Answer which states:
It will be apparent that some methods
of attachment would not be obvious
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, despite Rossi's
stated intention to "include any method
of attachment", but the structural
attachment of the instant claims is
sufficiently close to Rossi's
alternatives and Olsen's disclosure
to be considered obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007