Appeal No. 1999-1742
Application No. 08/730,674
allow the safe deployment of the restraining device” (answer, p.
5). Yet, later on in the answer, the examiner acknowledges
that, even without modification, Blackburn’s transmitter is
capable of transmitting “an appropriate signal” and that “the
purpose for modifying the Blackburn reference with that of Breed
was not only to transmit an appropriate signal but because it is
in the same field of endeavor” (answer, p. 7). However, even if
Blackburn and Breed are in the same field of endeavor, that fact
is not a convincing reason for combining the particular signal
mixing feature of Breed’s system (which determines the distance
to an object by measuring the phase shift between a first
reference beat signal and a second beat signal derived from an
infrared frequency modulated return signal) with the signal
processing system in Blackburn (which determines the presence of
an object by checking for an EMF signal of a predetermined
frequency and amplitude) in such a manner as to arrive at the
claimed invention. In our view, the only suggestion for
modifying Blackburn in the manner proposed by the examiner to
meet the limitations of claims 1, 9 and 14 stems from hindsight
knowledge derived from the appellant’s own disclosure. The use
of such hindsight knowledge to support an obviousness rejection
-11-11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007