Appeal No. 2000-1250
Application No. 08/662,077 Page 9
messages. Nor is Astmann directed to providing a generic message
interpreter to interpret generic messages to control switches
which respond to native switch messages.
Thus, we find that neither Ramstrom nor Astmann is directed
to the same problem appellant is dealing with, i.e., controlling
switches, each of which responds to a different set of native
messages. It is not necessary that the prior art be directed to
the same problem which appellants are involved with. As long as
some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is
provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not
require that the references be combined for the reasons
contemplated by the inventor. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688,
693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(en banc), cert.
denied, 500 U.S. 904 (1991) and In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309,
1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992). However, Ramstrom
and Astmann are each directed to different problems. Ramstrom is
directed to adding functionality to the system while avoiding
problems that the new code may have on the existing system.
Astmann is directed to providing better communication between
processors. Because Ramstrom and Astmann are directed to
different problems, we see no reason why an artisan of ordinary
skill would have been motivated to make the combination, as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007