Appeal No. 1997-1632 Page 18
Application No. 08/138,555
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). “[E]vidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine may flow from
the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or,
in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. . . .” Dembiczak, 175 F.3d
at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617 (citing Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Para-Ordnance Mfg. v.
SGS Imports Int’l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, the rejection is based on a combination of references that includes Rode
and Tolson. Rode only mentions using wired connections. Specifically, “[a] master
controller 100 is connected via a two-wire primary bus 102 to a plurality of
subcontrollers RMI1-RMI16, and each of the subcontrollers RMI1-RMI16 are in turn
connected via a two-wire secondary bus 104 to a plurality of terminal controllers RRI1-
RRI16.” Col. 2, ll. 44-49.
Tolson, however, teaches that persons skilled in the art would have been
motivated to substitute RF connections for such wired connections. Specifically,
“[w]hile wire paths are shown . . ., it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that
energy paths E may equally well be of any other suitable nature, such as . . . a radio
signal. . . .” Col. 4, ll. 53-56. Because wireless devices are easier to move than wired
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007