Appeal 2007-3462
Application 11/172,223
1 determining obviousness. Applicants have assembled known parts for their
2 known purpose and therefore we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
3 Group VIII (claim 12)
4 Claim 12 depends on claim 1 and recites a protective cover connected
5 to the connector section and covering the RFID tag. Brady describes two
6 forms of a protective “covering.” Both are shown in Fig. 2D as items 270
7 and 280. Brady describes protective coating 270 as covering the circuit chip
8 surface 215 and the ends of the lead frame 200. Brady further describes that
9 flowing the protective coating around the chip sides 266 assures that the chip
10 surface 215 is fully covered (Brady 6:48-57).
11 The other protective covering shown as 280 is described as
12 surrounding the chip 215 and the lead frame 200. The covering 280 is said
13 to provide packaging media for providing printing information and handling
14 media for the transponder, e.g., to house the transponder (Brady 7:7-19).
15 Applicants argue that neither of the Brady protective coatings is
16 connected to a connector section and covers the RFID tag (FF 33). The
17 Examiner found that using the Brady protective coating to cover circuitry
18 would inherently connect the cover to the connector section due to the form
19 of the Brady cover (FF 20). We cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection.
20 Brady describes a stand alone RFID tag. The RFID tag is coated with a film
21 270 and then surrounded by a protective housing 280. We understand the
22 Examiner to find that the flow coating 270, if put on top of the RFID
23 circuitry of a connector, would inherently connect the coating to the
19
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013