Appeal 2007-3462
Application 11/172,223
1 24. With respect to claim 7, the Examiner found that it would have
2 been obvious to use thermocouples to sense temperature for a more reliable
3 reading (Final Rejection 2 and Answer 4-5).
4 25. With respect to claim 12, the Examiner found that it would have
5 been obvious to use the Brady RFID tag cover to protect the tag circuitry
6 (Id.).
7 Applicants’ Arguments
8 26. With respect to Group I (claims 1, 8, 9, 15, 20 and 21) Applicants
9 argue4 that (Br. 5-13):
10 a) Black is not analogous art, since Black is directed to a sensor for a
11 pneumatic tire;
12 b) Even if Black were analogous art, there is no suggestion in
13 Stanescu to replace the Ballman LED with the Black transponder 200; and
14 c) The Examiner’s reason to combine is based on hindsight.
15 27. With respect to Group II (claim 3), Applicants argue that (Br. 13-
16 14) “there is no disclosure in Black of a temperature sensitive electrical
17 section which is adapted to interrupt signal transmission between a chip
18 section and an antenna section when the predetermined temperature is
19 reached.”
20 28. With respect to Group III (claims 4, 13 and 14), Applicants
21 argue (Br. 14-16) that the description in Black (7:25-40) does not
4 We refer to the 3 November 2006 “Substitute Appeal Brief.”
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013