Appeal No. 2005-0171
Application No. 10/064,380
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 5-13,
25, 47-60, and 62-64 as being unpatentable over
Carroll.5
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 5 which includes, inter alia, connecting circuitry for a
reader which includes a capacitor coupled to a driving coil. In
addressing this limitation, the Examiner, while recognizing that
Carroll lacks a disclosure of a capacitor coupled to a coil in the
reader (controller) 10 circuitry of Carroll, nevertheless directs
attention to the tuning capacitor 44 in the tag (transponder) 40 of
Carroll. According to the Examiner (Answer, pages 8, 21, and 22),
the skilled artisan would have been motivated and found it obvious
to include a tuning capacitor in the reader circuitry of Carroll
since Carroll teaches the use of a capacitor to provide tuning in
the tag circuitry.
After reviewing the arguments of record, we are in general
agreement with Appellants’ assertions at pages 118 and 119 of the
Brief. In particular, we find to be misplaced the Examiner’s
argument (Answer, page 21) that Appellants have provided no
evidence as to why a tuning capacitor would not be desirable in the
reader of Carroll. To the contrary, it is the Examiner who has the
5 As noted by Appellants (Brief, page 2), and verified by the Examiner’s
arguments (Answer, page 24), claim 49 was apparently mistakenly omitted from
the statement of the grounds of rejection at page 7 of the Answer.
24
Page: Previous 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007