Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 24
Application No. 09/834,499
reasoning as to why the claimed invention is obvious in light of
the teachings of the references has been presented in connection
with claim 14.”
From our review of claim 14, which depends from claim 1, we
find that the claimed antenna is coupled to the signal generator
of the interrogator circuit. Although Bryant is directed to an
antenna system for an automobile, the reference is directed to a
mobile antenna for use with cellular telephones (col. 1, lines 8-
10). From our review of Bryant, we find no suggestion for
modifying the antenna 2 of Iijima to be placed inside the
automobile passenger compartment as recited in claim 14, absent
appellant’s disclosure. In addition, although we find from the
disclosure of Iijima that the interrogator and antenna 2, 3 are
in the vehicle, we find no suggestion that the antenna 2 be
placed in the passenger compartment. Thus, we find that the
prior art would not have suggested to an artisan that the antenna
attached to the signal generator be located within the passenger
compartment. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 14 and 19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
We turn next to claim 20. We reverse the rejection of claim
20 due to its dependency from claim 19, and the deficiencies of
Bryant.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007