Appeal No. 1997-1632 Page 17
Application No. 08/138,555
at 17.) The appellants argue, "Clark '296 does not disclose or even suggest . . . the
claimed receiver for receiving electromagnetic radio frequency signals. . . ." (Paper
No. 47 at 21.)
Claim 80 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations: “a receiver for
receiving electromagnetic radio frequency signals. . . .” Giving the claim its broadest
reasonable construction, the limitations merely require a RF receiver.
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references.” In re
Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)). Furthermore, “[w]hether
motivation to combine the references was shown [is] a question of fact.” Winner Int’l
Royalty Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1348, 53 USPQ2d 1580, 1586 (Fed. Cir. 2000)
(citing In re Dembiczak, 175 F.3d 994, 1000, 50 USPQ2d 1614, 1617 (Fed. Cir. 1999);
Monarch Knitting Mach. Corp. v. Sulzer Morat GMBH, 139 F.3d 877, 881-83, 886, 45
USPQ2d 1977, 1982, 1985 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). “‘[T]he question is whether there is
something in the prior art as a whole to suggest the desirability, and thus the
obviousness, of making the combination.’” In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1311-12, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (quoting Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007