Appeal 2007-3131
Application 10/716,121
It is unexplained on what rationale the Examiner regards the claim feature of
a plurality of codes, each code comprising at least a data format, as being
satisfied simply by any data being transmitted according to a fixed format.
In the absence of any explanation given by the Examiner, we conclude
that the stated view of the Examiner is unreasonable.
The specification discloses three embodiments, all of which
refer to a plurality of codes each specifying or indicating one of many
possible data formats according to which data including the sensed
tire pressure may be sent by wireless transmission. Although the
Applicants could have recited in the claims a plurality of codes, each
code “specifying” or “indicating” a data format, it is evident that the
Applicants use the language “comprising at least a data format” to
refer to the same. In the Summary portion of the specification, the
Applicants refer to: “a plurality of codes, each code comprising at
least a data format.” Such choice of language is not an unreasonable
one. Format is an appearance that data possesses. Data cannot
reasonably “include” or “comprise” a format unless those terms refer
to the substantive content or significance of the data. Here, a code’s
comprising a data format can reasonably mean only that the meaning
of the data specifies or indicates a particular format. It does not mean,
as the Examiner concludes, simply that the data has a given format.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claims 1-20 as
anticipated by Kulka cannot be sustained.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013