Appeal No. 2004-0519
Application No. 09/394,199
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and arguments.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443,
1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). “[T]he Board must not only assure that
the requisite findings are made, based on evidence of record, but must also explain the
reasoning by which the findings are deemed to support the agency’s conclusion.” In re
Lee, 277 F.3d 1338, 1344, 61 USPQ2d 1430, 1434 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In addition, our
reviewing court stated in In re Lee, 277 F.3d at 1343, 61 USPQ2d at 1433, that when
making an obviousness rejection based on combination, “there must be some
motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination
that was made by Applicant” (quoting In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343, 48 USPQ2d
1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1998)).
The examiner has not identified any teaching or suggestion that a base station
could perform data compression. The examiner equates the transceiver 18 shown in
figure 1 of Nahi with the claimed base station. This transceiver is described in Nahi, as
being either a low power transceiver (in one embodiment, described in column 12, lines
1 to 6) or a multi-channel spread spectrum transceiver (in a second embodiment
described in column 12, lines 24-31). However, we do not find that Nahi teaches that
the transceiver 18 performs data compression, nor do we find any suggestion in Nahi
that data compression should be performed by the transceiver. Further, we do not find
that Stoye includes such a teaching. Thus, we find that neither Nahi nor Stoye, teaches
or suggests the limitation found in claim 22 of: “the base station compressing the raw
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007