Appeal No. 1998-2864
Application No. 08/338,235
of data for a specific monitored parameter in contrast to mere
display of data related to a given diagnostic mode” [principal
brief-page 9].
We do not find appellant’s arguments persuasive.
While Kobayashi does not employ radio communication because
of the proximity of the portable device to the vehicle, and so
non-wireless communication is the preferred embodiment in that
environment, appellant does not deny the obviousness of employing
wireless communication in certain applications. In those
situations where portable diagnosis devices are not so proximate
to the unit under diagnosis, it would appear then that even
appellant would agree that artisans would have found it obvious
to use wireless communications. Accordingly, even though
Kobayashi uses non-wireless communication, the skilled artisan
would have understood that for more distant applications, a
wireless communication system, such as radio communication, would
have been employed. Even in Kobayashi, while wireless
communication might be more costly and possibly cause some
interference problems, triggering the decision of a designer to
employ non-wireless communication, the artisan still would have
understood that wireless communication is an option, the choice
-7–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007