Appeal No. 98-1394 Page 6
Application No. 08/325,448
L. 497, 499, 501 (1990)). Here, claims 1-20 each specify in
pertinent part the following limitations:
operation of the marker transmitter (10) during
the enabling mode is controlled by the logic unit
(3) based on remotely transmitted control
information obtained from the paging receiver (1)
via the unit (2) for decoding.
In short, the claims each recite using a paging receiver to
receive transmitter controlling data.
The examiner fails to show a teaching or suggestion of
the claimed limitation. “Obviousness may not be established
using hindsight or in view of the teachings or suggestions of
the inventor.” Para-Ordnance Mfg. v. SGS Importers Int’l, 73
F.3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert.
denied, 519 U.S. 822 (1996) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc.
v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1551, 1553, 220 USPQ 303,
311, 312-13 (Fed. Cir. 1983)). “The 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, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir.
1992) (citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007