Appeal No. 2003-0506 Page 11
Application No. 09/264,766
2. Obviousness Determination
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re
Merck, 800 F.2d, 1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)). "'Rather, the test is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.'" Cable Elec. Prods., Inc. v. Genmark, Inc., 770 F.2d 1015, 1025, 226 USPQ
881, 886-87 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (quoting Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881).
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Here, the rejection is based on the combined teachings of Dent and Ayerst.
We find that the former reference broadcasts a message on a second channel if a user
terminal is disadvantaged. As aforementioned, "a first paging signal is transmitted for a
mobile phone on a first try channel." Col. 2, 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. When Ayerst's technique of channel identification was employed in Dent's
radio communication system, we are persuaded that the combined teachings would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007