Appeal No. 96-2992
Application 08/200,049
by the user. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention, to incorporate this teaching of Yamamoto
into Hashimoto [answer, pages 3 to 6].
Appellant argues that the suggested combination of
Hashimoto and Yamamoto is unobvious for a number of reasons
[brief, page 12]. The "most compelling reason" Appellant offers
for said position is that it would not work because the small
amount of data that could be recorded on Yamamoto's integrated
chip (IC) memory 9 would not suffice for a reasonable amount of
available translations for the Hashimoto system [brief, page 12].
Appellant further argues that the combination is unobvious
because there is not any teaching of a way to fit these two
systems [Hashimoto and Yamamoto] together into a working device
[brief, page 13]. For this position Appellant alleges that the
Examiner has not suggested any way to do so, and that it is not
clear how Yamamoto's integrated circuit could physically be
installed in Hashimoto's system without so much modification that
a new invention would be called for just for the combination of
the two references. Appellant still further argues, with respect
to the two references, that it is not obvious [to any one] to
want to combine them [brief, pages 13 to 14]. Appellant supports
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007