Appeal No. 2004-0129
Application No. 09/230,720
Claim 51 is similar to claim 26 except that only a local
area network (LAN) rather than a LAN or a pipeline ring is
recited and each actuator includes a processor. Since no
pipeline ring is recited, the examiner relies solely on Spinner.
However, as explained supra, Spinner fails to disclose that the
actuators are participants in a decentralized communications
hardware structure. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the
obviousness rejection of claim 51.
Claim 52 is identical to claim 51 except that it recites a
pipeline ring instead of the LAN. Thus, the examiner turns to
Flamm for a substitution of a pipeline ring for the LAN of
Spinner. The examiner asserts (Answer, pages 4-5) that the
substitution would be "a matter of obvious design choice."
"Design choice" is inappropriate in this situation. “Design
choice” has limited applications. See In re Chu, 66 F.3d 292, 36
USPQ2d 1089 (Fed. Cir. 1995) and In re Gal,980 F.2d 717, 25
USPQ2d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007