Appeal No. 2006-1785 Page 19
Application No. 10/768,827
lines 9-14; see also plural “command fields 1414” and “requests,” col. 10,
lines 11 and 21]. In particular, we note that McLain discloses at col. 4, lines
18-23:
One advantage of the present invention is that multiple levels of
responses generated by a command response table permit designers to
quickly provide a network emulator using simple, unintelligent responses
while allowing more detailed responses to be programmed at a later time.
Upon consideration of all the evidence before us, we find appellants’
arguments unpersuasive that the examiner has failed to show, inter alia, a
source of the motivation, objective evidence, a reasonable expectation of
success, and also that the proffered combination changes Ryzl’s principle of
operation [brief, pages 22-31]. We find that McLain provides specific
implementation details to improve Ryzl’s wireless device emulation system,
as argued by the examiner [answer, pages 20-28]. We further agree with
the examiner that the teaching, motivation, or suggestion to modify Ryzl
with the teachings of McLain is implicit from the prior art as a whole.
Accordingly, we conclude that the examiner has sufficiently explained why
an artisan possessing knowledge of Ryzl and McLain at the time of the
invention would have been motivated to look to McLain, to select particular
elements, and to combine them with Ryzl.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007