Appeal No. 2003-0506 Page 8
Application No. 09/264,766
American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir.
1984)). "[E]vidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine may flow from
the prior art references themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or,
in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. . . ." Dembiczak, 175 F.3d
at 999, 50 USPQ2d at 1617 (citing Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Para-Ordnance Mfg. v.
SGS Imports Int'l, Inc., 73 F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995)).
Here, we find that evidence to combine flows from the references themselves.
For its part, Dent "efficiently pag[es] a mobile phone in a radio communication system
having a plurality of mobile phones." Col. 2, ll. 45-46. Specifically, "a first paging
signal is transmitted for a mobile phone on a first try channel." Id. at ll. 47-48. If the
mobile phone does not acknowledge the first paging signal "because the mobile phone
is temporarily shadowed from the transmitter while passing under a bridge or past a tall
building," id. at ll. 25-28, "the call is transferred to at least a second try channel. A
second paging signal is then transmitted for the first mobile phone on at least the
second channel." Id. at ll. 50-53.
Although the disadvantaged mobile phone can switch channels, Dent does not
detail how the mobile phone identifies the second channel. The reference recognizes,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007