Appeal No. 2002-1672
Application No. 09/412,124
obviousness of combining the teachings to result in the invention
as claimed. 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). Accordingly,
since, in our view, the Examiner has not established a prima
facie case of obviousness, the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4-7, 12-14, 17-20, and 22 based on the combination
of Bridges in view of Nakano is not sustained.
Lastly, and for similar reasons just discussed, we also do
not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-7,
12-14, 17-20, and 22 based on the combination of Argade in view
of Nakano. As with the previous combination of Bridges and
Nakano, the Examiner has suggested the obviousness to the skilled
artisan of combining a teaching of acquiring instructions after a
triggering event (Argade) with that portion of Nakano which
teaches acquiring information before an event. As before, we
simply find no evidence provided by the Examiner which would
support such a conclusion of obviousness.
14
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007