Appeal No. 2002-0867
Application No. 08/738,659
571 (CCPA 1982); In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641,
644 (CCPA 1974).
Evidence of secondary considerations such as “long-felt but
unresolved need” is irrelevant when the invention lacks novelty. See, e.g.,
In re Malagari, 499 F.2d 1297, 1302, 182 USPQ 549, 553 (CCPA 1974)
(citing In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 179 USPQ 421 (CCPA 1973)).
Moreover, evidence submitted to show nonobviousness is not relevant or
material when an invention is anticipated. We thus will not consider or
further address appellant’s reliance (e.g., Brief at 5) on declarations
submitted to show nonobviousness of the invention.
In the instant case, claim 10 recites a method for communicating between a
monitored device and a monitoring device, comprising determining information to be
transmitted by the monitoring device to the monitored device, the information including a
request for status of the monitored device determined using sensors within the
monitored device.
Kraslavsky discloses a printer 4 (Fig. 1) on a local area network (LAN) 6. The
printer includes a network expansion board (NEB) interfacing the printer to the LAN.
The network may use network software, such as Unix software, to effect communication
over the various network members. Col. 4, ll. 1-58. With use of the NEB, “verbose
amounts” of status information may be provided from the printer 4 to the LAN, including
more than the simple “out of paper” and “off line” status messages that prior systems
allowed. Col. 6, ll. 18-62.
Software on the network administrator’s PC 14 allows request of status
information from the printer. Col. 14, ll. 27-48. Software at the remote printer outputs
the device status information in response. Col. 18, ll. 34-59. The communications may
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007