Appeal No. 2000-1944
Application 08/738,157
Appellants argue that it would not have been obvious to
modify the manner in which information is sent in Froehling so as
to teach the claimed invention in view of Dahl (Br8). It is
argued that Dahl teaches that request panel and acknowledge
panel 90 simply alternate turns as to sending and receiving
discrete messages such as "operator station needs parts" or
"acknowledge unit has received parts message from operator
station," whereas in Froehling, database information flows
downwardly from the head end unit 14 without any acknowledgment
from the controllers 10 back to the head end unit 14 and without
any need to do such alternate sending and receiving (Br8). It is
argued that the LED displays of Froehling provide for the display
of the type of information contemplated by Froehling (Br8).
The Examiner's repeats the obviousness reasoning which we
previously quoted (EA6).
"[T]he best defense against the subtle but powerful
attraction of a hindsight-based obviousness analysis is rigorous
application of the requirement for a showing of the teaching or
motivation to combine the references." In re Dembiczak,
175 F.3d 994, 999, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999).
"Combining prior art references without evidence of such a
suggestion, teaching, or motivation simply takes the inventor's
disclosure as a blueprint for piecing together the prior art to
defeat patentability ) the essence of hindsight." Id.
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007