Appeal No. 1997-2899
Application No. 08/385,574
A failure of link 112 in network 301 causes an error code to
be transmitted to the receiving terminal. Upon detecting an
error code, the receiving terminal uses the error-free
information transmitted and received over the other network
302. Thus, Appellant’s claim 24 clearly requires that
duplicate information be simultaneously transmitted over
different and redundant communication links.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he 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 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). It is further
established that “[s]uch a suggestion may come from the nature
of the problem to be solved, leading inventors to look to
references relating to possible solutions to that problem.”
Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d
1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996), (citing In
re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1054, 189 USPQ 143, 149 (CCPA
1976)) (considering the problem to be solved in a
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007