Appeal No. 2000-0588 Page 9
Application No. 08/824,110
Rose discloses the use of a random number generator, in a system for
conversing dolls, for determining which of a plurality of dolls will initiate conversation
(doll A), which doll will respond to doll A (doll B) and which conversation routine will be
followed. We find no teaching in Rose of using the random number generator for
generating random timing signals or attention signals, as called for in claims 3-5.
As discussed above, Hughes uses a random number generator to assign an ID
number to a parent unit in a child proximity detection system and does not teach or
suggest using a random number generator for generating timing signals. We thus find
no suggestion in Hughes to provide a random number generator in the Wingate toy to
cause the toy telephone to ring and play a message at random times. Moreover, in that
the objective of programming Wingate’s toy telephone to ring at predetermined times
and to play predetermined messages is to convey suitable predetermined instructions
to children at suitable predetermined times, Wingate teaches away5 from a modification
thereof to cause the telephone to ring at random times and to select and play random
messages. Where, as in this case, the proposed modification would render the prior art
invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, the proposed
modification would not have been obvious. See Tec Air Inc. v. Denso Mfg. Michigan
Inc., 192 F.3d 1353, 1360, 52 USPQ2d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Gordon, 733
F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Accordingly, we shall not
5 See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007