Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121
transmitted according to a different one of the stored plurality
of codes.
Each of claims 1-20 recites something different from one another,
particularly independent claims 1, 11, and 19. The Examiner, however,
adopts a general and scattered approach that does not address all the features
of any one claim specifically. The entirety of the Examiner’s analysis for
claims 1-20, within the stated ground of rejection, is reproduced below
(Answer 3:5-16):
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
anticipated by Kulka et al (6,087,930).
-- in considering claims 1-10, the claimed subject matter that is
met by Kulka et al (Kulka) includes:
1) the transponder (10), RFID(18), central processing
unit (20), including memory (22), including tire ID code (see:
col. 5, ll. 20-31), low frequency receiver(34), external interface
inputs (26,28), low frequency receiver;
2) the program signal having a low frequency is met
(see: col. 8, ll. 26-41);
3) the remote transmitter including low frequency
transmitter is met by the interrogator (80, col. 8, ll. 25-41);
4) the signal transmitted according to each of the stored
plurality of codes and the receiver recognizing the codes is met
by the interrogator transmitting based on a tag ID value (see;
col. 8, ll. 42 et seq).
-- Claims 11-20 recite subject matter that is met as discussed in
claims 1-10 above.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013