Appeal No. 96-3763
Application 07/946,509
ments regarding the non-combinability of the references, the
examiner states that the combination would be
made “to reduce the network complexity” [see pages 7, 8, 9,
11, 12-13 and 14 of the answer]. Without some indication as
to how or why the artisan would have made the modifications to
achieve
reduced complexity and/or increased speed, the examiner has
fallen far short of the prima facie case of obviousness re-
quired by 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We are not saying that the examiner must show a
bodily incorporation of the elements of one reference into
another but there must be some reason or suggestion in the
prior art for making the modifications indicated by the exam-
iner. Platitudes such as “to reduce the network complexity”
and “to increase the speed” are not enough since there is no
indication by the examiner as to how and/or why these desired
results would have been accomplished by the combination set
forth by the examiner. We are not even saying that the refer-
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007