Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121
The above-quoted analysis is incomprehensible, with regard to
identifying how each feature of any one rejected claim is deemed to have
been met by Kulka. Neither independent claim 1 nor 19 requires a program
signal of any kind, and independent claim 11 does not require a program
signal having a low frequency. None of independent claims 1, 11, and 19
requires a “remote” transmitter, or a transmitter of any kind that includes a
low frequency transmitter. The Examiner, also, nowhere identifies what in
Kulka constitutes the stored plurality of codes, each code comprising at least
a data format, which is required by independent claims 1 and 19. With
regard to independent claim 11, the Examiner nowhere identifies what in
Kulka constitutes the plurality of codes, each code comprising at least a data
format, one of which is included in or comprised by the program signal. We
note that Kulka in col. 8, ll. 26-41, discusses nothing about a plurality of
codes, each comprising at least a data format. Also, the Tag ID value
discussed in col. 8, ll. 42-65, of Kulka is an identification code which
specifies a particular transponder for communication with interrogator 80; it
is not a code that specifies a format for transmission of sensed tire pressure.
The Examiner’s analysis is lacking and inadequate for
establishing a prima facie case of anticipation. The Applicants argue,
persuasively, that the Examiner failed to point out in Kulka the
plurality of stored codes, each code comprising at least a data format,
that is required by independent claims 1 and 19. Claim 1 further
requires that the transmission of a wireless signal including data
representing sensed tire pressure be in accordance to the at least one
of the stored plurality of codes; that has not been accounted for by the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013