Appeal 2007-3462
Application 11/172,223
1 connector section as well as to the circuitry. But that is not what Brady
2 describes, either explicitly or inherently. Brady describes coating and then
3 placing yet another cover or housing over the whole device to form the
4 “tag.” Brady does not contemplate coating the circuit and connecting the
5 circuit through the same coating to some other object.
6 For these reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection with respect to
7 claim 12.
8 E. Decision
9 Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, the
10 Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, 13-15, 17, and 19-21 under 35
11 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ballman in view of Stanescu and
12 Black is affirmed.
13 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
14 being unpatentable over Ballman in view of Stanescu and Black is reversed.
15 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
16 being unpatentable over Ballman, Stanescu, Black and Warden is affirmed.
17 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
18 being unpatentable over Ballman, Stanescu, Black and Brzozowski is
19 affirmed.
20 The Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
21 being unpatentable over Ballman, Stanescu, Black and Brady is reversed.
20
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013