Appeal No. 2002-0880
Application No. 09/183,214
test. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8 through 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler and Bald.
For the group of claims 16 and 17, Appellants argue that Winkler and Bald do
not provide sufficient suggestion or motivation to modify Winkler’s tester device to arrive
at a device that obtains current measurements. See page 28 of the brief.
As pointed out above, we have found that Winkler teaches a tester designed to
test a plurality of different standard of electronic modules. Furthermore, Winkler
suggest to those skilled in the art that his invention provides a device for testing a
plurality of electronic modules which can be used by a technician having only limited
skill and that the device provides a pass/fail indication for a module being tested.
Winkler then suggests to those skilled in the art that his system could be modified to
provide other test as well. See column 16, lines 47 through 56. Bald teaches testing
other devices that must be tested by using current measurements thereon. See
Winkler, column 3, lines 44 through column 5, line 2. Therefore, we find that Winkler’s
suggestion to those skilled in the art of modifying Winkler to provide other tests, would
have provided reasons to modify the Winkler system to include the Bald test which
performs a current measurement. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 16 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Winkler and Bald.
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007