Appeal No. 2002-2151
Application No. 09/342,234
While it is true that Weiss discloses that each of the
controllers (50-64) therein "receives all communications and
detects which parts of the communication are intended for it and
evaluates these" (col. 3, lines 17-20), after having selected the
appropriate portion or portions of the communication for it, we
have no indication in Weiss as to exactly what further evaluation
the controller performs. The examiner's conclusion in the
rejection that the controllers of Weiss each include a
"determining device" and an "apparatus state changing device"
like those specifically set forth in claim 1 on appeal is clearly
based on speculation and conjecture.
Since we have determined that the teachings and suggestions
found collectively in Weiss and Iihoshi would not have made the
subject matter as a whole of claims 1 through 10 on appeal
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants' invention, we must refuse to sustain the examiner's
rejection of those claims under 35 U.S. C. § 103(a).
99
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007