Appeal No. 96-3964
Application No. 08/225,228
standard of obviousness and the Examiner has provided no
support for such position.
For the reasons discussed above, the rejection of claims
10-13, 15, and 16 as unpatentable over Rossi and Olsen is not
sustained.
With respect to the rejection of claim 14 as unpatentable
over the combination of Rossi, Olsen, and Hesser, we note that
claim 14 is dependent on independent claim 10 and incorporates
all the limitations of claim 10 just discussed. Hesser was
cited solely to meet the programmable feature of the claimed
transponder but does not overcome the innate deficiencies of
the combination of Rossi and Olsen. Therefor, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 14 for the reasons discussed
above.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007