Appeal No. 2002-1318
Application No. 08/693,662
West is directed to avoiding interference in RF communications,
and Downey is directed to the use of tone detection and adaptive
thresholds to detect valid signals from noise, that an artisan
would not have been motivated to combine the teachings of Dockery
with the combined teachings of West and Downey, as advanced by
the examiner. Thus, we agree with appellants (brief, page 5)
that in the system taught by West and Downey, communications
signals are already successfully coupled between separate lines
with a wireless link, which includes a transmitter and receiver,
and that there is no need for the antenna taught in Dockery;
i.e., that there is no reason to delete the RF transmitter from
the combined teachings of West and Downey. In our view, the only
suggestion for modifying in the manner proposed by the examiner
to meet the above-noted limitations stems from hindsight
knowledge derived from the appellants' own disclosure. The use
of such hindsight knowledge to support an obviousness rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is, of course, impermissible. See, for
example, W. L. Gore and Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d
1540, 1553, 220 USPQ 303, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied,
469 U.S. 851 (1984). It follows that we cannot sustain the
examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3, and 5. Accordingly, the
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007