Appeal 2006-2462
Application 09/790,856
broadly taught device is the specific type of integrated circuit device in
Brady illustrated in figures 1 through 7 as RFID IC 122. Inasmuch as there
is only a generic teaching of a broadly defined integrated circuit
electromagnetic type of device in Tanaka, the artisan would have clearly
found it obvious to have utilized those broad teachings in light of the
specific embodiments taught in Brady as argued by the Examiner best at
page 7 of the Answer.
In light of these additional teachings noted by the Examiner and from
our study of Tanaka and Brady, we do not agree with Appellant’s argument
at page 10 of the principal brief and the same argument at page 4 of the
Reply Brief that the artisan would have been led away from the claimed
invention in light of Brady teachings. In our view, we are persuaded that the
artisan would have been led to combine the respective teachings within 35
U.S.C. § 103 in light of the teachings identified by us and by the Examiner.
The mere location of the RFID device in Brady appears to us not to be
applicable to the generic teaching in Tanaka when confronted by the specific
teaching of Brady. Even if Brady’s figure 10 may teach away, the remaining
teachings and showings in Brady clearly would have argued for the proper
combinability to thus render obvious the subject matter of claim 1 and thus
independent claim 9 as well under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Turning next to the separate features of independent claims 18 and 52
on appeal, it is noted that these claims, as distinguished over the feature of
independent claims 1 and 9 on appeal, recite two ID devices with at least one
reader.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013