Appeal No. 96-4088
Application 08/317,411
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact
that the prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by
the Examiner does not make the modification obvious unless the
prior art suggested the desirability of the modification." In
re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84
n.14 (Fed. Cir. 1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902,
221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
We find no reason to combine Chin with Sze to obtain
the Appellant's claimed invention. Sze is concerned with
providing parity checking for a synchronous data transmission
in a unidirectional serial loop transmission system. Chin is
concerned not with providing parity checking for data trans-
mission but instead is using parity checking to determine if
control signals are being transferred properly. We fail to
find any reason to modify Chin to provide a parity checking
for data transmission, nor do we find any motivation to modify
Sze to become an array processing system with bidirectional
data transmission. Therefore, we will not sustain the
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007