Appeal No. 2001-0040
Application No. 09/037,105
claimed invention, merely another type of data/characteristic is recited without any
qualification. From our understanding of data transmission, the limiting factors would
be the specific type of sensor, its signal strength and format of the transmission which
would limit the application thereof. Here, we have no limitations to any such detail.
Therefore, we agree with the examiner and do not find that appellant has shown error in
the examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness of dependent claim 14.
The examiner found that claim 9 distinguishes over the prior art.
With respect to dependent claim 10, appellant attempts to modify the groupings
set forth in the brief at page 3 and separately argue claim 10 at page 5 of the reply. For
completeness, we will address appellant’s argument. Appellant argues that dependent
claim 10 recites that the sensors are in a consistent pattern in both regions. (See reply
brief at page 5.) From our review of Ruell, we find that the pairs of sensors 31/32 are in
a consistent pattern which is different from that of the sensors in the first portion. Here,
the language of claim 10 does not limit the size or arrangement of the sensors beyond
a substantially lower spatial frequency in the second portion which is present in the
teachings of Ruell as discussed above. Therefore, this argument is not persuasive, and
we will sustain the rejection of dependent claim 10.
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007