Appeal No. 2005-1817 Page 10
Application No. 09/834,499
the transponder of Iijima can be formed either within the key or
separate from the key. In sum, we find an express suggestion
within the prior art of making the transponder separate from the
key.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s assertion (brief, page
11) that “[i]t is Appellant’s position that invention is to be
gauged not only by the extent or simplicity of the physical
changes, but also by the perception of the necessity or
desirability of making such changes to produce a new result.”
Appellant is correct that the desirablilty of making the
modification should be considered. However, from the disclosure
in Takagi of forming the transponder either within the key or
separate from the key, we find the desirability of making the
modification. The disclosure of the two alternatives suggests
the equivalence and interchangeability of the alternate key and
transponder constructions.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s assertion (brief, page
12) that Iijima fails to articulate a motivation for making the
modification suggested by the examiner. It is the combined
teachings of the prior art that need to be considered, not the
teachings of Iijima alone. Nor are we persuaded by appellant’s
assertion (id.) that “it is the cooperative relationship of the
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007