Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 12
Application No. 09/834,499
1. The rejection of claims 3, 4, 8, 9, 15 and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
We turn next to claim 2. The examiner’s position (answer,
page 8) is that Iijima in view of Takagi do not explicitly
disclose that the transponder circuit is a mobile radio frequency
identification (RFID) data carrier including a memory element for
storing the identification code. To overcome this deficiency of
Iijima and Takagi, the examiner turns to Tuttle for a teaching of
a transponder circuit that is a RFID data carrier in a vehicle
access system.
Appellant’s position (brief, page 17) is that claims 2-5, 7-
14, 16 and 17, 19 and 20 were rejected as unpatentable over
Iijima in view of Takagi with some of the claims being further
rejected in view of one or more of the following references to
Tuttle, Tallman, Strohbeck, Weber, Flanagan, Hansen, Dodd and
Bryant. It is argued (id.) that the claims are patentable for the
reasons set forth, above, with respect to claim 1, and that “due
to the great number of disparate references cited in connection
with this case, it is Appellant’s position that the above-
identified application was used as a blueprint, with the
hypothetical combination of the Iijima and Takagi device as the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007