Appeal No. 2004-0070
Application No. 10/047,529
examiner, the examiner should reevaluate the scope of the claims presented in light of
the teachings of Kahkoska.
Finally, appellants allege there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation for the
proposed combinations. (Brief at 6-7.) Even assuming that to be true, Feiner teaches,
as we have noted, a plurality of test signatures, and the teachings further encompass
the claimed telephone line which forms a continuous electrically conductive path. The
“output device” of claim 1 requires no more than, for example, an LED that indicates
proper transmission and reception over the data link. Although not expressly described
in Feiner, the device must have some visible means of indicating to the user that the
line can support the communication under test. Moreover, Kahkoska taken alone
demonstrates the obviousness of instant claim 1.
Based on the foregoing, we are not persuaded that the evidence relied upon by
the rejection fails to show prima facie unpatentability of the subject matter as a whole of
representative claim 1. We sustain the Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, 9, 18,
and 19.
Appellants’ remarks relating to the remainder of the rejections rely on the alleged
deficiencies of Feiner, or of Feiner and Emerson. We consider the position to be
untenable, for the reasons previously expressed. Appellants’ only other arguments --
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007