Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121
The Examiner’s response regarding the Applicants’ reliance on an
unclaimed definition of “code” or “format” is misplaced.
The Examiner is entitled to read “code’ and “data format”
broadly, according to the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d at 321, 13 USPQ2d at
1322. So long as a code, satisfied by some data or information,
specifies or indicates a format for wireless transmission of data that
includes the sensed tire pressure, that would satisfy the “code” and
“data format” aspects of the claims. However, the Examiner has gone
beyond the limit of reasonableness, effectively reading out of the
claims any meaningful significance of the requirement of a plurality
of codes, each code comprising at least a data format. The Examiner
evidently reads the claims as only requiring transmission of data
according to any format. (Answer 5:10-18). That reading is
excessively broad, and unreasonable.
It is not in dispute that Kulka does not disclose any choice of
data format for transmission of data including the sensed tire pressure.
On page 5 of the Answer, the Examiner states:
Use of stored codes and transmission of data according “to a
format” is clearly taught by Kulka in a manner which reads on
the limitations of the claimed subject matter. In col. 10 ll. 29-
33, Kulka clearly states that signals transmitted from the
RFID(18) to the remote interrogation source(30) are transmitted
in serial format. As well, Kulka states that parameters output
from memory(22) are transmitted serially after preamble signal
bits, which implies that parameter data is coded data that is
serially transmitted to the remote interrogation source.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013