Appeal No. 2004-0547
Application No. 09/536,894
(Fed. Cir. 1983). “The motivation, suggestion or teaching may come explicitly from
statements in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some
cases the nature of the problem to be solved.” In re Huston 308 F.3d 1267, 1278, 64
USPQ2d 1801, 1810 (Fed. Cir. 2002, citing In re Kotzab 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55
USPQ 1313, 1317 (Fed. Cir. 200)). We find that Yamadera, teaching that the secretary
terminal is manually operated, does not provide motivation to automate the routing of
the signals without human intervention. Further, we do not find that the nature of the
problem to be solved in Yamadera provides motivation to automatically route signals
through the base video unit to said caller without the need for human intervention.
Yamadera is concerned with solving the problem of simultaneously transferring
documents at high-speed and video conferencing (see column 1, lines 35-60).
Similarly, we find no suggestion in Lazik to automatically route signals through a base
video unit to said caller without the need for human intervention, in a video phone
system such as Yamadera. Nor do we find that the nature of the problem to be solved
in Lazik, to allow a caller on a telephone to check on the condition of a person who may
be physically unable to answer the phone (see Lazik column 3, lines 26-33) provides
motivation to combine the teachings. Thus, we do not find motivation to combine the
teachings, either expressly, implicitly or from the nature of the problem to be solved.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 3, 5, 9, 13
and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Yamadera in view of Lazik.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007