Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 13
Application No. 09/834,499
main structural diagram.” We are not persuaded by appellant’s
assertion because the number of references cited, by itself, is
not evidence of non-obviousness. It is the teachings of the
references, when applied against the language of the claim as a
whole, that must be considered in the determination of whether
the invention set forth in a claim would have been suggested by
the prior art. As we address each additional rejection, we will
consider each of the applied references. Turning to claim 2, we
have no specific arguments presented for this claim. From our
review of the record, we find that in Iijima the identification
code is transmitted from the transponder (col. 23, lines 43 and
44) and that the identification code is stored in the EEPROM of
the transponder (col. 3, lines 41 and 42). From this disclosure,
we find that Iijima discloses the transponder to be a radio
frequency data carrier including a memory element for storing the
identification code, as recited in claim 2. In addition, from
our review of Tuttle, we find from the disclosure (col. 2, lines
38-41) that wireless transponder circuitry 14 comprises RFID
circuitry, including memory. From our review of the record, we
are in agreement with the examiner, for the reasons set forth in
the answer, that the teachings of Iijima, Takagi and Tuttle would
have suggested to an artisan the invention set forth in claim 2.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007