Appeal No. 2002-1743
Application No. 09/047,866
invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of references; rather, the test is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary
skill in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where a rejection is based on a combination of references. It is not necessary that the
device shown in one reference can be physically inserted into the device shown in the
other reference to justify combining their teachings in support of rejection. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
While Cleary may not have two registers, Mitel does depict two registers, one in
each of the receive/transmit paths and Clearly is simply employed by the examiner to
show that each register of Mitel would be modified by Cleary’s teaching since Mitel is
concerned with the measurement of peak values and Cleary suggests a method to
insure that no errors occur in the measurement of the peak value. The examiner states
a compelling case for the artisan to have employed Cleary’s technology in the Mitel
device so that Mitel’s circuit would operate “without false peak measurements” (answer-
page 5).
While appellants argue that there is an advantage to their invention in that “the
DSP of Appellants’ claimed invention updates the values of the two registers without
requiring a time delay circuit nor a BCD counter that is dependent on the number of
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007