Appeal 2007-1854
Application 10/920,345
In other words, the processing section of the claimed device together
with the warning section are constructed/programmed so as to possess the
functionality of determining if and when the aforementioned two
circumstances occur and are constructed so as to furnish a warning based on
the determination that at least one of those circumstances has occurred.
§ 102(b) Rejection over Aubel
The Examiner has correctly found that Aubel discloses a tire
monitoring system including a temperature sensor embedded in a tire and an
evaluation unit (processing section) for monitoring the output signal of the
tire temperature signal (Answer 4; Aubel; col. 2, ll. 24-33).
Regarding the claim requirement for a device with the capability of
determining the occurrence of the aforementioned second circumstance and
issuing a warning upon such an occurrence determination, the Examiner
acknowledges that “the system of Aubel fails to expressly compare the
temperature rise at given times but rather integrates a plurality of
temperature measurements and determines when the integral of the
temperature/time curve exceeds a predetermined threshold value.” (Answer
7). In this regard, we note that Aubel is concerned with the effect of
exposure of tire components to a relatively high temperature over a period of
time (an integral or summation over time) as opposed to a rate of
temperature increase of the tire over a particular time (a derivative value
with respect to a temperature/time function). Aubel discloses storing
temperature data and determining the time period of high temperature
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013