Appeal 2007-2537
Application 11/170,468
1 For example, Applicants’ argument that Laske uses paints and not
2 labels is not helpful. The Examiner did not rely on Laske to teach the
3 claimed labels. Rather, the Examiner relied on Laske to demonstrate that
4 temperature indicators on connectors for indicating an overload or excessive
5 temperature were known. The Examiner also found that one of ordinary
6 skill in the art knew that temperature sensing labels existed and could be
7 used instead of paints for detecting over temperature or overload conditions,
8 citing to Weibe and Ko. Applicants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings
9 with respect to what the individual references teach (FF 22). Thus, the
10 inquiry becomes would it have been obvious to combine the teachings of
11 Laske with Ko or Weibe, not whether each and every individual reference
12 describes each and every claimed limitation. The Examiner’s rejection is
13 based on obviousness, not anticipation. For these reasons, Applicants’
14 attack of the references individually is without merit, and we need not and
15 will not address Applicants’ arguments in that respect.
16 Applicants also argue that the combination made by the Examiner was
17 improper and that there is no suggestion, teaching or motivation to combine
18 the references (FF 20(e)). The Examiner made specific findings why the
19 combination would have been obvious. For example, the Examiner found
20 that one of ordinary skill in the art knew how and would want to use
21 temperature sensing paints or labels for permanently recording an over
22 temperature or overload condition (FF 20). The Examiner found that Ko
23 specifically teaches using temperature sensing labels on sockets, which the
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013