Appeal No. 1999-0876
Application No. 08/693,494
station. The examiner states (Answer, pages 6-7) that
Connolly discloses transmitting a second random number RES1
from the cordless base station to the authentication equipment
and that "[i]t would have been obvious . . . to move the
generation of the random number from the wireless
communication device of Connolly, et al to the cordless base
station, in order to make the wireless communication less
complicated and less expensive." As an alternative motivation
for modifying Connolly, the examiner asserts that "it has been
held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only
routine skill in the art."
As to the examiner's first attempt at modifying Connolly
to include a second random number generated at the base
station, the examiner provides no evidence or basis in the
reference for his conclusion of obviousness. The Court has
held that "[w]ith respect to core factual findings in a
determination of patent-ability, however, the Board cannot
simply reach conclusions based on its own understanding or
experience -- or on its assessment of what would be basic
knowledge or common sense." In re Zurko,
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007