Appeal No. 2002-0067 Page 5
Application No. 08/721,921
reasonable construction. . . ." In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664,
1668 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Here, independent claim 1 specifies in pertinent part the following limitations:
"detecting the malfunction of the communications link at the outdoor unit; and . . .
indicating the malfunction with an external output at the outdoor unit." Claims 7, 17,
and 23, the other independent claims, include similar limitations. Giving the
independent claims their broadest, reasonable construction, the limitations require
detecting at an outdoor unit a malfunction in a communication link between the
outdoor unit and an indoor unit and indicating at the outdoor unit that the malfunction
has occurred.
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed, the next inquiry is
whether the subject matter would have been obvious. "The mere fact that the prior art
may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification."
In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (citing In
re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). "It is
impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or 'template' to
piece together the teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is rendered
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007