Appeal 2007-0415
Application 10/320,947
appropriately sized tire. Significantly, the claims are directed to the annular
apparatus comprising an antenna and not to the combination of the antenna
and a tire. As explained by the Examiner, the claim recitation is directed to
the intended use of the antenna with a tire of unspecified size. Also, we note
that Appellants have not rebutted the Examiner’s reasonable rationale at
pages 16-17 of the Answer regarding the breadth of the claim recitation.
We also concur with the Examiner that the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the
meaning of § 103 over the collective teachings of Nigon, Dunn, Polson,
Fritze, and Pollack. Nigon, like Appellants and Dunn, discloses an annular
antenna for a tire, but fails to teach that the antenna is formed of a resilient
conductive material that extends along a wavy path to form a continuous
loop. However, Dunn evidences the obviousness of forming the antenna
from a resilient conductive material and extending it along a wavy path for
absorbing the repeated deformations occurring during the use of the tire such
that substantial expansion of the antenna is possible when needed. Also
Polson evidences the obviousness of employing a ferrite torroidal core for
establishing magnetic coupling between the antenna and the transponder. In
addition, Fritze is further evidence of the obviousness of locating an annular
antenna assembly at a lower side wall region of a tire so that the antenna
assembly is not subjected to too great a beating stress or too great a
dampening, while Pollack teaches encasing an antenna and a transponder in
an insulating rubber in order to form a composite which is protected from
stray electrical charges.
Appellants maintain that “there is no teaching or support in Nigon for
affixing an annular antenna assembly so configured to an internal lower
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013