Appeal No. 2000-1209
Application No. 08/711,180
teaching, motivation, or suggestion to select and combine
the references relied on as evidence of obviousness.
See, e.g., McGinley v. Franklin Sports, Inc., 262 F.3d
1339, 1351-52, 60 USPQ2d 1001, 1008 (Fe. Cir. 2001) (“the
central question whether there is reason to combine [the]
references,” a question of fact drawing on the Graham
factors).
We note that in the present case the examiner has made no
factual findings in either reference, let alone to make a rational
inference that the teachings of Yee can be combined with Basu. We
agree with appellant that Yee is concerned with audio-to-video
synchronization and has nothing to do with the booting of a client
workstation of Basu. Therefore, the examiner has not shown any
justification for the combination.
Furthermore, even if the references to Basu and Yee were
combinable, arguendo, appellant argues (brief at page 6) that
[T]he claimed invention requires a generation of an
audio-visual signal by the computer followed by a
monitoring by such computer system for control signals
from a remote terminal responsive to the generated audio-
visual signal. In contrast, the teaching in Basu at
column 8, lines 9-17, involves an activity in which the
computer system sends a download request to a remote
terminal, and the remote terminal responds by a download
action. . . . Therefore, the direction of control flow
is both specified in the claims and opposite that of
Basu.”
The examiner responds (answer at page 8) that “the client [of
Basu] which is a remote computer and the VMS server 10 which is the
parameters [sic, controller] not having keyboard and display.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007