Ex Parte 5253341 et al - Page 54




               Reexamination Control No. 90/005,742                                                                                   
               Patent 5,253,341                                                                                                       

          1    that is not addressed by Dr. Koopman or appellant.  Moreover, Kandell does not actually “teach                         
          2    away” in the patent law sense from using the disclosed concentrators in a standard voice                               
          3    telephony system.  The reason is that instead of questioning the technological feasibility of such                     
          4    an arrangement, Kandell finds faults for merely economic reasons.  See Syntex (U.S.A.) LLC v.                          
          5    Apotex, Inc., 407 F.3d 1371, 1380, 74 USPQ2d 1823, 1830 (Fed. Cir.  2005):                                             
          6                    Under the proper legal standard, a reference will teach away when                                      
          7            it suggests that the developments flowing from its disclosures are unlikely                                    
          8            to produce the objective of the applicant's invention.  In re Gurley, 27 F.3d                                  
          9            551, 553 [31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131] (Fed. Cir. 1994).  A statement that a                                          
         10            particular combination is not a preferred embodiment does not teach away                                       
         11            absent clear discouragement of that combination.     In re Fulton, 391 F.3d                                    
         12            1195, 1199-1200 [73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146] (Fed. Cir. 2004)].                                                      
         13                                                                                                                           
         14            The rejection of claim 11 for obviousness over Yurt in view of Kandell is therefore                            
         15    affirmed.                                                                                                              
         16            (5)  Claim 11 – obvious over Yurt in view of Gargini?                                                          
         17            Gargini discloses television cable systems in which subscribers can receive signals from                       
         18    as well as return signals to the system via a cable carrying electrical or optical signals.  Id. at                    
         19    col. 1, ll. 5-8.  The cable system depicted in Figure 7 includes concentrators 76, whose inputs are                    
         20    connected to head end 71 by trunk lines 75 and whose outputs are connected to switching centers                        
         21    78 by subtrunk lines 77.  Id. at col. 8, l. 64 to col. 9, l. 1.  Each concentrator 76 is connected to its              
         22    associated switching centers by seven coaxial cables, six of which carry the groups of VHF                             
         23    television signals and the seventh of which carries Band II signals and control data signals.  Id.  at                 
         24    col. 9, ll. 36-40.  As shown in Figure 7, each switching center is connected to a plurality of                         
         25    homes 80, each of which includes a plurality of outlets or subscriber stations 81.  Each                               
                                                            - 54 -                                                                    





Page:  Previous  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007