Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
Further, even if proper motivation were found to exist for the
proposed combination of Chatelot and Kurusu, we find no indication
from the Examiner as to how and in what manner the references would
be combined to arrive at the specific combination set forth in
appealed independent claims 1 and 41. In our view, the Examiner
has combined the transformer connection teachings of Kurusu with
the reader and tag communication circuitry disclosure of Chatelot
in some vague manner without specifically describing how the
teachings would be combined to arrive at the claimed invention.
This does not persuade us that one of ordinary skill in the art
having the references before her or him, and using her or his own
knowledge of the art, would have been put in possession of the
claimed subject matter.
In view of the above discussion, since all of the claim
limitations are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art,
it is our opinion that the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness, based on the combination of Chatelot and
Kurusu, with respect to appealed independent claims 1 and 41.
Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1 and 41, nor of claims 3 and 43 dependent
thereon.
22
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007