Appeal No. 1999-2694
Application No. 08/684,651
failed. If Lux has no interest in determining whether a path, or channel, has failed, then
Lux would appear to have little relevance to the instant claimed subject matter which is
clearly concerned with the loss of output signals from one transmitter so that the signals
input thereto can then be provided to a second transmitter which will then transmit both
channels. If Lux has no interest in determining whether there is a loss of output signals
from one transmitter, one must question why the skilled artisan would look to Langseth for
any suggestion of sensing failure of transmission of a path, or channel, and how such a
teaching would be applicable to the Lux device.
The examiner’s entire rationale for making the combination is “in order to provide a
continuous transmission” [answer-page 7]. We do not find this rather brief and cryptic
rationale for concluding obviousness of the instant claimed subject matter to be sufficient
under 35 U.S.C. § 103. The examiner does not explain how the combination would
provide for any more “continuous transmission” than is already provided for by Lux, alone.
It is our view that the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
obviousness.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007