Appeal No. 2002-0312 Page 10
Application No. 08/953,922
recognition of the problem solved by the appellants’ invention is present in the applied
references and no other reason is provided for modifying the Simi apparatus by
replacing the hard-wired control with a wireless remote control.
As was the case with the first, this rejection lacks the required suggestion to
combine the references in the manner proposed by the examiner. This being the case,
the combined teachings of the two references fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim 1, and we will not sustain
this rejection.
The lack of suggestion to combine the references also causes this rejection to be
fatally defective with regard to claims 2-4 and 7-20, which recite at least some of the
structural limitations of claim 1, which were discussed above.
(3)
Claims 1-4 and 7-20 further stand rejected on the basis of Griswold and
Cummins. The examiner adds Cummins to Griswold for its disclosure of a wireless
remote control that is self-contained and battery-powered, which the examiner believes
is lacking in Griswold. However, from our perspective, much else is lacking from
Griswold. We first point out, in this regard, that the examiner’s conclusion on page 8 of
the Answer that Griswold “discloses a wireless snow plow control system” is without
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007