Appeal No. 2002-1695 Page 12
Application No. 08/971,386
broadcast an alarm signal when unit 186 indicates a substantial
malfunction of computer 185. Units 187 and 186 utilize computer
185's logic circuits, which are part of the arithmetic logic unit
of PT 187 (col. 32, lines 19-33). From this disclosure of
Anders, taken with the disclosure that some PTs will be connected
to other system components, when the units replace electronic
components in computers (col. 8, lines 40-44) we find that Anders
suggests that the PT 187 is connected through logic circuitry,
either directly or through test unit 186, to the bus of computer
185. However, we find no suggestion to replace the PT of Anders
with a RF modem of Fuller because doing so would destroy the
operability of Anders, as the RF modem would not respond to the
AT in an inventory system as a PT would, rendering Anders’ system
inoperable. In addition, we find no motivation to replace the PT
with a RF modem because, although both devices are dual ported,
an RF modem for adding software to a computer is vastly different
from a passive transceiver (PT) in an inventory control system.
The only motivation we find is from appellants' disclosure
through the improper use of hindsight. “Obviousness may not be
established using hindsight or in view of the teachings or
suggestions of the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS
Importers Int’l, 73 F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007