Appeal No. 1997-0199
Application No. 08/199,480
combination as providing a teaching of monitoring sensed data
at predetermined time periods with the Examiner suggesting
(Answer, page 4) “...because the specific use of such in a
tire parameter sensing apparatus is clearly suggested by
Bowler.”
In response, Appellants assert that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness since
proper motivation for one of ordinary skill to make the
Examiner’s proposed combination has not been established.
Upon careful review of the applied prior art, we are in
agreement with Appellants’ stated position in the Brief. The
mere fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the Examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In the present instance,
although Dunn teaches the mounting of a transponder in a tire
and provides for interrogation from a remote source, Dunn’s
disclosure is directed to an identification system for
inventory purposes. We fail to see how Dunn’s system which is
designed solely to provide tire identification information,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007