Appeal No. 1996-3276
Application 07/978,518
Thus, it would have been obvious ... to modify the Ihara
signal monitoring device to monitor multiple parts of a
transmission signal as taught Matsuura, .... It would have
been further obvious ... to operate the resulting system in
accordance with the pulse and timing relationships defined by
the SAE J1850 standard thereby resulting in the system of
claims 1 ..., since the standard was well known ... and it
would have been a matter of routine skill ... to adjust the
operating parameters of the signal monitoring circuitry to
monitor the pulse and timing characteristics defined in the
standard [answer, page 6].
The courts have provided us a guidance in determining the
propriety of an obviousness rejection. In rejecting claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner is
expected to make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148 USPQ 459, 467
(CCPA 1966), and to provide a reason why one having ordinary
skill in the pertinent art would have been led to modify the
prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive at the
claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some teaching,
suggestion or implication in the prior art as a whole or
knowledge generally available to one having ordinary skill in
the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007