Appeal 2007-3462
Application 11/172,223
1 Brady
2 20. The Examiner found that Brady describes using an RFID tag
3 cover 270 and 280 (Fig. 2D) as recited per claim 12 and that using the
4 coating 270 to cover the circuitry would inherently connect the cover to the
5 connector section (Final Rejection 4 and Answer 5 and 9).
6 The Examiner’s Reasoning for Combining the References
7 21. With respect to claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 13-15, and 19-21, the
8 Examiner found that one skilled in the art would have known to replace the
9 Ballman visual temperature indicator with the Black RFID tag as further
10 taught by Stanescu, so as to facilitate automated monitoring and enhance
11 adaptability of the device (Final Rejection 2 and Answer 4-5).
12 22. With respect to claim 2, the Examiner found that it would have
13 been obvious to crimp the wire terminals as taught by Warden as opposed to
14 soldering them, as taught by Ballman, since both are well known equivalents
15 for performing the function of connecting and terminating wires (Final
16 Rejection 3 and Answer 5).
17 23. With respect to claims 5 and 17, the Examiner concluded that it
18 would have been obvious to use multiple tags, since it is merely a
19 duplication of parts without patentable significance, citing to In re Harza,
20 274 F.2d 669, 671, 124 USPQ 378, 380 (CCPA 1960) (Final Rejection 3 and
21 Answer 4-5).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013