Appeal No. 2000-1690
Application No. 08/697,808
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 n.14, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 n.14 (Fed. Cir.
1992), citing In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125,
1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The court further reasons in Karsten Mfg.
Corp. v. Cleveland Gulf Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1385, 58 USPQ2d 1286,
1293 (Fed. Cir. 2001) that for an invention to be obvious in view
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 principals, we do not find that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Riddle’s
teleconferencing system with the group discussion system of Ng
and allow the client devices to communicate between one another
in the absence of the master device. Riddle generally describes
a teleconferencing system for a group of users while Ng is
directed to a group discussion system that requires a coordinator
at all times. Furthermore, we agree with Appellants that the
desire to have communication between the client devices when the
master device is absent is insufficient to teach or suggest to
one of ordinary skill in the art to include Riddle’s
teleconferencing system in Ng. In that regard, Ng actually
requires that another student user assume the role of the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007