Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 2, 4,
41, 42, 44, and 45 as being unpatentable over
Chatelot in view of Ogita.4
We do not sustain this rejection for reasons similar to those
discussed supra with respect to the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection based on Chatelot and Kurusu. As with the Examiner’s
proposed combination of Chatelot and Kurusu, we simply find no
indication as to how and in what manner the transformer circuitry
of Ogita, which connects tuning capacitor 34 to amplifier 37, would
be combined with the tag and reader circuitry of Chatelot to arrive
at the specific combination set forth in independent claims 1 and
41. Similarly, as with the rejection based on Chatelot and Kurusu,
we find no evidence that would support the Examiner’s contention
that one of ordinary skill would look to the disclosure of Ogita,
which suggests the use of a transformer to provide impedance
matching between an antenna and an amplifier, to solve a problem
associated with coupling a driving signal to a coil in a tag and
reader communication circuit as in Chatelot.
4 The Examiner’s statement of the grounds of rejection (Answer, page 7)
apparently mistakenly omits independent claims 41 and 43 since the Office
action mailed January 15, 2004, Paper No. 6, as well as the arguments at page
21 of the Answer indicate they are to be included.
23
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007