Appeal No. 2005-2418
Application 09/932,639
through 8 of Pitt obviously would have been specialized as memory
devices according to the teachings in Davis. Coupled with the
earlier-noted teachings of memory metal devices noted earlier in
this opinion, it appears to us that the artisan would have found
a requisite motivation to have combined the teachings of the
references contrary to the arguments at page 21 of the Brief.
Because Pitt already teaches memory type devices that are not
apparently changeable by data being transmitted thereo, the
obvious enhancement of the type of traditional data storage
devices in Davis leads us to conclude that there is no valid
hindsight argument that can be made as set forth at the bottom of
page 21 of the Brief. A teaching at column 5, lines 55 through
61, of Davis does contemplate that other types of communication
channels or paths may exist between the portable length 20 and
the data storage devices 22 shown in figure 1, such as to broadly
encompass the fiber optic approaches or optical approaches taught
by Pitt. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Finally, we also sustain the rejection of independent
claim 20 for the reasons set forth by the examiner in the Answer.
The argued feature here is the last clause of claim 20 where it
14
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007