Appeal No. 2000-2232
Application 08/483,928
implications contained in such teachings or suggestions. There
is absolutely no suggestion in the prior art of the
desirability of the Examiner's proposed modification.
Furthermore, we agree with Appellant that the proposed
motivation would not motivate one to include the printer in
the same housing, as a printer coupled remotely would have
sufficed.
We similarly find the Examiner's conclusory statement
that including a printer in the housing of '101 is merely a
well known design option obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art because maintaining parts fixed together as a single
unit provides no significant functional or patentable
differences, to be without basis from express teachings or
suggestions found in the prior art, or by implications
contained in such teachings or
suggestions. Again, there is absolutely no suggestion in the
prior art of the desirability of the Examiner's proposed
modification.
The Federal Circuit states that "[t]he mere fact that the
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007