Appeal 2007-3462
Application 11/172,223
1 USPQ2d 1687, 1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
2 As already discussed above, Black describes a temperature sensing
3 circuit in conjunction with an RF transponder. Thus, all of the parts were
4 well known. Applicants have done no more than arrange old parts for their
5 known and intended purpose. KSR, 82 USPQ2d at 1385 (The combination
6 of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious
7 when it does no more than yield predictable results).
8 Applicants also argue that the Examiner’s reason to combine is based
9 on hindsight (FF 26(c)). “[A]ny judgment on obviousness is in a sense
10 necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
11 takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary
12 skill at the time the claimed invention was made and does not include
13 knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is
14 proper.” In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209, 212
15 (CCPA 1971). Here, the Examiner correctly relied on the knowledge of the
16 art as already discussed above, and therefore the rejections were not based
17 on improper hindsight.
18 Group II (claim 3)
19 Claim 3 depends on claim 1 and recites that the RFID tag comprises a
20 chip section and an antenna section. The connector performance indicating
21 section (claim 1) includes a temperature sensitive electrical section coupling
22 the chip section to the antenna section. The temperature sensitive electrical
23 section is adapted to interrupt the signal transmission between the chip
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013