Appeal No.2002-1516
Application No. 09/052,744
apparent to those skilled in the art” would have taught or suggested the usage of any
type of USB peripheral devices including the claimed peripheral hub device to house the
second transceiver because the claimed peripheral hub device is a well-known USB
peripheral device. (See answer at page 4 and Burnett at column 4, lines 63-65.)
While we agree with the examiner that peripheral hubs were known, we find no
teaching, motivation or suggestion to substitute a peripheral hub in the wireless
communication system as taught by Burnett. We find the teaching in Burnett to merely
be an invitation for other substitutions which we find insufficient alone to suggest the
use of a USB hub for additional connections to the USB port via a wireless connection
taught by Burnett.
Additionally, we note that Burnett does mention the use of a USB “hub” at column
3, line 19, but this teaching appears to be merely a USB port as recited in appellants’
claimed and disclosed invention. Furthermore, from our review of Burnett with respect
to the disclosure of the “hub,” the respective interconnections of the transceivers are not
in the appropriate locations with respect to the hub and ports, therefore we cannot find
that the “hub” disclosed in Burnett would have taught or suggested the invention as
claimed nor can we find that the examiner’s reliance upon the teaching of similarly
equipped peripheral devices alone would have suggested substitution of a peripheral
hub for the printer of Burnett. Therefore, we find that the examiner has not established
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007