Appeal No. 1998-2201
Application No. 08/571,702
or epitome of obviousness.” In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399,
1402, 181 USPQ 641, 644 (CCPA 1974).
Turning to the remainder of the claims on appeal,
appellants argue (Brief, pages 5 through 9) that Pollack
neither teaches nor would have suggested the claim 12 steps of
“positioning said external rod antenna such that an axial line
of the external rod antenna is along the circumferential
direction of the tire,” and “moving the external rod antenna
along the circumferential direction, and reading and writing
to and from said transponder from outside of the tire.” We
agree with appellants’ arguments. Although it is possible to
position and move the Pollack rod antenna portion 27 in a
myriad of directions as suggested by the examiner (Answer,
page 4), we believe that the examiner arrived at the
specifically claimed directions only after reading appellants’
disclosed and claimed directions. We will not condone the use
of impermissible hindsight to arrive at a suggested teaching
of such claimed directions. In summary, the 35 U.S.C. §
102(b) and the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 12, 14 and
15 are reversed.
DECISION
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007