Appeal 2006-1914
Application 09/764,609
1 [S]ystems of the type disclosed in Acker do not transmit data
2 relative to the configuration of these magnetic devices to the
3 receiving unit. These units merely transmit magnetic fields that
4 are detected and interpreted by the receiving unit to determine
5 the location of the sending unit. (Br. 6.)
6
7 At the time of the Chader invention and at the time the present
8 invention was made, it would have been recognized that the
9 amount of data that needed to be transferred between the
10 instrument and the systems necessitated a hard wired systems
11 for the type of systems as claimed. (Id.)
12
13 Acker does not disclose an interchangeable feature nor does
14 Chader. (Id.)
15
16 The Examiner contends (Answer 7) that
17 Acker et al. explicitly teaches that although the connection
18 between the device mounted on the instrument (which is
19 analogous to Chader's housing 32 in Figure 2 or 50 in Figure 3)
20 and the position detecting system (which is analogous to
21 Chader's position detecting system 14,16) is hard-wired with a
22 plug, such hard-wired connection can be replaced by a wireless
23 connection (col. 11, line 61-col. 12, line 4). Acker et al. offers
24 this motivation: to avoid "the physical encumbrance of loose
25 wires trailing from the instrument" (col. 12, lines 3-4).
26
27 We affirm.
28 ISSUE
29 With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
30 unpatentable over Chader, the issue is whether the teachings and suggestions
31 of Chader would have suggested the language of the claims. The issue turns
32 on whether the Examiner's line of reasoning, by itself, is sufficient to make
33 up for the deficiencies of Chader. With regard to the rejection of the claims
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013