Appeal No. 1997-1378
Application No. 08/065,328
evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the
evidence as a whole and the relative persuasiveness of the
arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038,
1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745
F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Arguments which Appellants could have made but elected not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered in this decision
(note 37 CFR § 1.192).
With respect to representative independent claim 1 from
the claims of Group I, the Examiner, as the basis for the
obviousness rejection, proposes to modify the wireless
communication system disclosure of Natarajan. In the
Examiner’s view (Answer, pages 3 and 4), the skilled artisan
would have found it obvious to increase reliability in
Natarajan by adding a communication quality determining
feature to initiate a base station search mode as taught by
Imaseki.
In response, Appellants assert (Brief, pages 11 and 12)
that the Examiner has failed to provide proper motivation for
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007