Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121
Examiner. Claim 19 further requires that the series of wireless signals
including data representing the sensed tire pressure be transmitted in
accordance with respectively different ones of the stored plurality of
codes; that has not been accounted for by the Examiner.
The Applicants argue, persuasively, that the Examiner failed to
point out in Kulka, a plurality of codes, each code comprising at least
a data format, one of which being comprised by the program signal, as
is required by claim 11. Claim 11 further requires that the
transmission of a wireless signal including data representing the
sensed tire pressure be in accordance with the one of the plurality of
codes; that has not been accounted for by the Examiner.
In response to the Applicants’ argument that the claimed
“codes” of each independent claim must each comprise at least a data
format, which format according to the specification may be used to
identify a signal format including any number of characteristics, such
as carrier frequency, modulation scheme, data format, and/or
encryption technique, the Examiner simply states that nowhere in the
claims are the definition of the terms “code” and “format” recited.
(Answer 5:5-6).
The Applicants have merely pointed to that part of the
specification which gives examples of factors which figure into the
establishment of different signal formats for wireless data
transmission. The Applicants have not argued that any one claim
requires a particular signal format of wireless transmission. Indeed,
the claims do not require any particular format of data transmission.
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013