Appeal 2007-3462
Application 11/172,223
1 describe a permanent recordation of a temperature event in contrast to
2 the Examiner’s findings that it does.
3 29. With respect to Group IV (claims 5 and 17), Applicants
4 argue (Br. 15 and 17) that claims 5 and 17 require multiple tags and
5 that multiple tags allow multiple signals at different frequencies and at
6 different temperatures and is not merely a “duplication of parts” as
7 asserted by the Examiner.
8 30. With respect to Group V (claim 19), Applicants argue that (Br.
9 18) “the features of claim 19 are not disclosed or suggested in the cited art.”
10 31. With respect to Group VI (claim 2), Applicants argue (Appeal Br.
11 at 19-20) that the “features of claim 2 are not disclosed or suggested in the
12 cited art.”
13 32. With respect to Group VII (claim 7), Applicants acknowledge that
14 Brzozowski describes a thermocouple, but that there is no suggestion to
15 combine Brzozowski with the other cited prior art to arrive at claim 7 (Br.
16 20).
17 33. With respect to Group VIII (claim 12) Applicants argue (Appeal
18 Br. 21) that neither the Brady protective coating 270 nor the Brady
19 protective surrounding 280 are connected to the connector section and cover
20 the RFID tag as recited in claim 12.
21 D. Principles of Law
22 A claimed invention is not patentable if the subject matter of the
23 claimed invention would have been obvious to a person having ordinary
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013