Appeal No. 2000-1703
Application No. 08/963,545
through a television set and its attached power-line carrier
medium to dim room lights (page 111, right-hand column).
As our reviewing court states, "[t]he mere fact that the
prior art may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner
does not make the modification obvious unless the prior art
suggested the desirability of the modification." In re Fritch,
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). Additionally, “the Board must not only
assure that the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of
record, but must also explain the reasoning by which the findings
are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re Lee, 277
F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
Based on our findings above, we remain unpersuaded by the
Examiner’s argument that Gutzwiller’s home controller, using
power line carrier, suggests using repeaters or relays as non-
master nodes for wirelessly transmitting and receiving control
signals, as required by Appellants’ claim 20. In that regard,
while Gutzwiller indicates the use of infrared transmission from
a remote control to a television set, which sends the received
signal through the attached power-line carrier to dim room
lights, the reference fails to teach or suggest wirelessly
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007