Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121
Reference Relied on by the Examiner
Kulka US 6,087,930 July 11, 2000
The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), as
anticipated by Kulka.
B. Issue
Have the Applicants shown error in the rejection of claims 1-20?
C. Summary of the Decision
The Applicants have shown error in the rejection of each one of
claims 1-20.
D Findings of Fact (Referenced as FF. ¶ No.)
1. The disclosed invention is directed to a “universal” monitor for
use in a remote tire pressure monitoring system. (Specification 1:4-6).
2. The Applicants acknowledge that at the time of invention it was
well known in the automotive industry to provide vehicles with remote tire
pressure monitoring systems for monitoring tire pressure and other tire
parameters. (Specification 1:8-10).
3. Typically, the prior art tire pressure monitors (TPM) transmit
wireless radio frequency signals which include data representing the tire
pressure. (Specification 1:12-13).
4. According to the Applicants, pre-existing TPM systems
are different from one manufacturer to the next, and may even be
different within an individual manufacturer’s platform, and
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013