Ex parte KULKA et al. - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 1997-0199                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/199,480                                                                                                             



                          power supply means, mounted on the substrate, for                                                                             
                 supplying electrical power to the integrated circuit chip and                                                                          
                 the sensor means; and                                                                                                                  
                          antenna means, mounted on the substrate and connected to                                                                      
                 the receiver means and the transmitter means, for                                                                                      
                 communicating an interrogation signal from the remote source                                                                           
                 to the receiver means and for communicating a signal from the                                                                          
                 transmitter means to the remote source;                                                                                                
                          the memory responsive to the processor for storing the                                                                        
                 output signal from the sensor means at the predetermined                                                                               
                 times.                                                                                                                                 
                          The Examiner relies on the following prior art:                                                                               
                 Griffiths et al. (Griffiths)                                                             3,613,075                                    Oct.                       
                 12, 1971                                                                                                                               
                 Dunn et al. (Dunn)                                    4,911,217                                    Mar. 27,                            
                 1990                                                                                                                                   
                 Higgs et al. (Higgs)                                  5,061,917                                    Oct. 29,                            
                 1991                                                                                                                                   
                 Bowler et al. (Bowler)                                5,231,872                                    Aug. 03,                            
                 1993                                                                                                                                   
                          Claims 1-6, 9-16, 22-27, 30-36, and 43-47 stand finally                                                                       
                 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over                                                                              
                 Higgs in view of Dunn and Bowler.  Claims 7, 8, 17-21, 28, 29,                                                                         
                 and 37-42 stand finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over                                                                            
                 Higgs in view of Dunn and Bowler and further in view of                                                                                
                 Griffiths.        2                                                                                                                    

                          2The Examiner’s statement of the grounds of rejection in                                                                      
                 the Answer does not include Bowler as a reference being relied                                                                         
                                                                           3                                                                            





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007