Appeal No. 1997-0199
Application No. 08/199,480
rejection of independent claims 1, 22, and 43, and claims 2-6,
9-16, 23-27, 30-36, and 44-47 dependent thereon, over the
combination of Higgs, Dunn, and Bowler is not sustained.
With respect to the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
dependent claims 7, 8, 17-21, 28, 29, and 37-42 as
unpatentable over the combination of Higgs, Dunn, Bowler, and
Griffiths, we note that Griffiths was applied solely to
address the claimed tire revolution detection features.
Griffiths, however, does not overcome the innate deficiencies
of Higgs, Dunn, and Bowler and therefore, we do not sustain
the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 8, 17-21, 28, 29, and
37-42.
In conclusion, we have not sustained the Examiner’s
rejections of any of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, the
decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-47 is reversed.
REVERSED
JAMES D. THOMAS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007