Appeal No. 96-2854
Application No. 08/119,980
as disclosed and claimed by Appellant. Note Appellant’s
specification at page 3, lines
16-18, where it recites “Dedicated trunks are not required,
and excessive trunk resource is not consumed.”
The Examiner’s combination of Okanda with Okurano
saves resources at the expense of some delay. How much delay
is tolerable in Okurano is not addressed by the references,
Appellant or the Examiner, and would be a necessary
consideration in deciding to implement the Okanda teaching.
The Federal Circuit reasons in Para-Ordnance Mfg. Inc. v. SGS
Inporters Int’l., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088-89, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239-
40 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 117 S.Ct. 80 (1996), that
for the determination of obviousness, the court must answer
whether one of ordinary skill in the art who sets out to solve
the problem and who had before him in his workshop the prior
art, would have been reasonably expected to use the solution
that is claimed by the Appellants. We find the cost savings
advantage of Okanda to be an obvious improvement to Okurano
since both systems achieve a relatively quick recognition and
response to remote faults. Also, since Okurano is monitoring
faults on its own (internal) communication system, automatic
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007