Appeal 2007-0415
Application 10/320,947
We have thoroughly reviewed each of the arguments advanced by
Appellants. However, we are in complete agreement with the Examiner’s
reasoned and thorough analysis of the prior art, as well as his cogent
disposition of the arguments raised by Appellants. Accordingly, we will
adopt the Examiner’s reasoning as our own in sustaining the rejections of
record, and we add the following for emphasis only.
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection under § 102 over Dunn. A
principal argument of Appellants is that Dunn does not disclose the presently
claimed annular antenna that forms a continuous loop. However, since
Dunn clearly discloses that the opposing ends of annular antenna wire 91 are
connected to the opposite ends of magnet wire 97a at terminals 98a and 98b
(Fig. 9), we fully concur with the Examiner that Dunn fairly describes a
continuous annular loop for the antenna within the meaning of § 102. As
emphasized by the Examiner, the claims on appeal do not require that the
continuous loop is formed from only one wire but, rather, encompass a
continuous loop formed from connected wires, as disclosed by Dunn.
Appellants’ argument that “[t]he antenna of Dunn is interrupted by
termination of the antenna ends to the chips 28” (Br. 5, first ¶) is not focused
upon Figure 9 of the reference.
Appellants also contend that Dunn does not teach that the antenna has
a diametric size suitable for attaching to the internal lower sidewall portion
of a tire, as recited in claim 1. However, we agree with the Examiner that
the claim recitation fails to impart any particular structure to the antenna but,
instead, is contingent upon the relationship between the size of the antenna
and the size of the tire to which it may be attached. Manifestly, the annular
antenna of Dunn is capable of being attached to the lower sidewall of an
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013