Appeal No. 1999-0091
Application No. 08/762,052
distinctive ringing signals, no prior art uses such a signal in
an advanced notification system. Appellant should remember that
the rejection is under 35 U.S.C. § 103 rather than under
35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellant "cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections
are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426, 208 USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant contends (Brief, page 6) that the references do
not provide sufficient motivation for a combination under
35 U.S.C. § 103 and further asserts (Reply Brief, page 3) that
the references teach away from a combination thereof. We
disagree. As indicated by the examiner (Answer, page 3), Oprea
discloses using a distinctive ring for a telephone to announce a
call from a particular source. We agree with the examiner
(Answer, page 4) that, in view of Oprea, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use a distinctive
ring in the system of Ross to announce the call from the vehicle
to warn the user of the vehicle's impending arrival. The level
of the skilled artisan should not be underestimated. See In re
Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
With a distinctive ring, the user would not have to answer the
phone to know that the vehicle is nearby. Alternatively, the
distinctive ring would notify the user when the vehicle is
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007