Appeal No. 2002-1695 Page 13
Application No. 08/971,386
Cir. 1995)(citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721
F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir.
1983)). “It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as an
instruction manual or ‘template’ to piece together the teachings
of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered
obvious.” In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780,
1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992)(citing In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 987, 18
USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991)).
In addition, we note that the RF modem of Fuller does not
meet the claims because even though Fuller discloses connecting a
dual port RF identification tag to the memory bus of a computer,
and stores information in the RF tag before unpacking the
computer by preloading program information into the modem, there
is no disclosure of storing user information in the RF modem of
Fuller. Although Fuller does download information into the
computer, the information only includes downloaded software, and
there is no disclosure of downloading user data to the external
computer 302 of Fuller.
From all of the above, we find that the examiner has failed
to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 1 and 2.
Accordingly, the rejection of claims 1 and 2 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007