Appeal 2006-2462
Application 09/790,856
For the reasons set forth by the Examiner at pages 3 and 4 of the
Answer concerning the Examiner’s statement of the rejection as well as the
Examiner’s responsive arguments as to the rejection of claims 1 and 9 at
pages 6 and 7 of the Answer, we sustain the rejection of them and, by
implication, their respective dependent claims since no arguments are
presented to us in the Brief and Reply Brief as to any dependent claims on
appeal. It goes without saying that the cassettes in Tanaka correspond to the
claimed cartridges of the claims on appeal. Although we recognize that the
statement of the rejection of the Examiner does not identify any particular
portion of Brady, the Examiner’s responsive arguments at pages 6 and 7
expand upon the reasoning of combinability and essentially address
Appellant’s basic argument in the principal Brief on appeal as to this
rejection that the Examiner has exercised impermissible hindsight and that
there is no teaching or suggestion or line of reasoning for the combination as
expressed at pages 10 through 12 of the principal brief on appeal.
The claimed identification device comprising a radio frequency
identification element (RFID) is not taught specifically in Tanaka. Both
parties recognize, however, that Tanaka contains extensive teachings that the
ID device 1 in figure 1 is taught to be an integrated circuit or IC card of
some type. The Examiner has identified significant expansive teachings at
column 9, lines 14 through 18 of Tanaka (which we extend to line 25),
which are noted by the Examiner at page 7 of the Answer to teach to the
artisan that the term IC card covers all possible forms of storage than may be
read by a electromagnetic or optical means as taught at this location in
Tanaka. The Examiner continues the reasoning that one form of such a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013