Appeal 2007-1535
Application 10/626,969
precluding the need for dedicated, point-to-point wiring for communicating
with the various vehicle electrical components.
In this regard, one having ordinary skill, facing the wide range of
needs created by developments in the vehicular manufacturing industry (e.g.,
the increased demand for electronic devices in vehicles while at the same
time reducing cost and complexity), would have seen a benefit to upgrading
the wire harness 30 with a data communications bus.10 Moreover, the
effects of demands known to the design community (i.e., reducing vehicle
weight while accommodating increased demand for on-board electronic
devices), along with the prior art teachings noted above and the background
knowledge of the skilled artisan (an electrical engineer with several years of
related industry experience), would have reasonably motivated the skilled
artisan to utilize a data communications bus as a suitable replacement for a
wire harness.11
At Least the Independent Claims are Unpatentable Over the Teachings of
Boreham and Nykerk
Claims 1, 12, 20, 25, 30, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Boreham in view of Nykerk.
10 See KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1744 (“The proper question to have asked was
whether a pedal designer of ordinary skill, facing the wide range of needs
created by developments in the field of endeavor, would have seen a benefit
to upgrading Asano with a sensor.”).
11 See id., at 1740-41 (“Often, it will be necessary for a court to look to
interrelated teachings of multiple patents; the effects of demands known to
the design community or present in the marketplace; and the background
knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order
to determine whether there was an apparent reason to combine the known
elements in the fashion claimed by the patent at issue.”).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013