Ex Parte Geaghan et al - Page 6




              Appeal No. 2005-2313                                                                        6               
              Application No. 10/052,695                                                                                  


              opts for an antenna configuration for transmitting unique identifiable signals that can be                  
              received by a receiver associated with a particular user, the artisan would have been                       
              dissuaded from employing Dietz, in combination with anything, for achieving the instant                     
              claimed subject matter.                                                                                     

                     We disagree.  Dietz does not “teach away” from the instant claimed subject matter.                   
              A “teaching away” by a reference occurs when a person of ordinary skill, upon [examining]                   
              the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference or                     
              would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the applicant.  In re                 
              Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131 (Fed. Cir. 1994).  Merely because Dietz                      
              teaches two embodiments and prefers one as “superior” (column 5, lines 50), would not be                    
              a suggestion that an artisan should never employ the other embodiment.  The reference                       
              does not discourage an artisan from following the path taken by appellants.  It merely                      
              teaches two embodiments, one of which is employed by appellants, and one which Dietz                        
              considers “superior.”  However, Dietz does not discourage taking the path taken by                          
              appellants.  In fact, Dietz discusses both embodiments and even states that his system                      
              “can work in one of two ways” (column 5, lines 44-45).  Thus, Dietz recognizes that either                  
              one of the alternative embodiments is satisfactory (either a touch surface being a large                    
              array of antennas transmitting uniquely identifiable signals to a small number of receivers                 
              associated with particular users (the preferred embodiment) or a large array of antennas                    
              receiving a small number of uniquely identifiable signals from transmitters associated with                 
              particular users), even though Dietz prefers one over the other.  It does not disclose that                 
              the second embodiment is unworkable, only less preferred.  Dietz’s disclosure still teaches                 
              the artisan the embodiment employed by appellants.                                                          

                     Accordingly, we do not find a “teaching away” from the instant claimed subject                       
              matter by Dietz.                                                                                            







Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007