Appeal No. 2003-0189
Application No. 09/627,892
examiner to establish why one having ordinary skill in the art would have been
led to the claimed invention by the express teachings or suggestions found in the
prior art, or by the implication contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker 702 F2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “Additionally,
when determining obviousness, the claimed invention should be considered as a
whole; there is no legally recognizable “heart’ of the invention.” Para-Ordnance
MFG. V SGS Importers Int’l Inc., 73 F3d 1085, 1087, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1239
(Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. Garlock, Inc., 721 F2d 1540,
1548, 220 USPQ 303, 309 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984)).
We agree with the examiner’s findings on page 3 of the answer, that Bell
teaches that nodes can be powered by extracting power from the telephone line.
We find that Rosen teaches a system where telephones provide a dual
communication, to the normal phone system and to a computer through the
Phone Interface Unit (PIU) and the Computer Interface Unit (CIU), see column 3,
lines 39-57. We find that the PIU and CIU each represent a junction point
between the phone wire and either a phone or a computer. Accordingly, both the
PIU and CIU meet the definition of a node. We find that Rosen et al. teaches
that in one embodiment, the CIU produces a RF power signal which is provided
to the PIU over the telephone lines and that the same RF carrier signal can carry
both power and voice data, see column 4, lines 33 to 37. Rosen teaches that
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007