Appeal No. 1997-0265
Application No. 08/294,882
to avoid interconnecting network components to form a ring
network [brief, pages 5-13].
Since we agree with at least the second and third
arguments of appellants, we do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5, 7-14 and 16. Even if the artisan
were to modify Peterson’s switching mechanism to be
programmable as taught by Franaszek, the invention of claim 1
does not result. Franaszek only teaches that one selected
device can be programmably connected to any other selected
device. Although this would permit the components of
Franaszek to be connected to form a ring network, there is no
suggestion that such an interconnection should be implemented.
In fact, as appellants point out, the one configuration
Franaszek seeks to avoid is the pure ring network. The mere
fact that the prior art may be modified in the manner
suggested by the examiner does not make the modification
obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the
modification. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900,
902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). It is clear that
the collective teachings of Peterson and Franaszek would not
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007