Appeal No. 2004-1596
Application No. 09/544,858
PC-card of Kowalski with the LPC bus protocol of AAPA is
suggested in the portions of Kowalski, as pointed to by the
Examiner. Kowalski, as specified by Appellant (brief, page 9-
11), requires using a simplified protocol performable by all
reader types (col. 2, lines 60 through col. 3, line 2) which
cannot be ignored by any of the devices. This “initial phase
dialogue,” which is characterized by the examiner as decoding the
first signal, is actually produced from electrical signals which
can be produced in all protocols and not likely to be ignored by
the reader as it determines the future exchange protocols. Thus,
we agree with Appellant that such combination is made only in
terms of the problems and solutions disclosed by Appellant since
the prior art disclosure, at least, teaches away from such
combination (brief, page 11).
Thus, the evidence provided by the Examiner would have
failed to motivate the skilled artisan to combine the AAPA with
Kowalski to provide for the second device to ignore the first
signal and to decode the second signal. Kowalski, in fact,
requires decoding the first signal by all devices before other
signals are processed. Whereas, our reviewing court requires
that particular findings must be made as to the reason the
skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention,
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007