Appeal No. 2000-1594
Application No. 08/543,101
of a combination of references, there must be some suggestion,
motivation, or teaching in the prior art that would have led a
person of ordinary skill in the art to select the references and
combine them in the way that would produce the claimed invention.
Based on these well-settled principles, we agree with
Appellants that there is no reason or motivation to combine
Roach’s data communication system with the two-carrier
communication system of Hara and Levanto’s integrated cellular
and paging system. The Examiner’s assertion that Roach, Hara and
Levanto provide “different ideas in the area of communication,”
is not sufficient to suggest the combination to one of ordinary
skill in the art. Furthermore, the Examiner does not point to
any particular part of the references to provide the required
reason or suggestion for combining the references, nor can we
derive this requirement from the teachings of the references. In
that regard, Roach uses a cellular transmitter with a paging
receiver and Levanto improves the range of cellular communication
by storing paging messages in the cellular exchange while nothing
in Hara points to the use of a two-carrier transmission/reception
in combination with the data messaging system of Roach.
In view of our analysis above, we find that the Examiner has
failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness with
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007