Appeal No. 2006-1995
Application No. 10/662,263
The Examiner proposes (Answer, page 4) to modify the programmable remote
control device of Parienti by adding the intelligent card reader device of Renner. In our
view, however, the system described by Renner has little relevance to the remote
control device of Parienti and, at best, provides only a disclosure that intelligent card
readers that may be adapted to read various forms of smart cards are known in the art.
We find no convincing rationale provided by the Examiner as to why the ordinarily
skilled artisan would look to the teachings of Renner, directed to intelligent card readers
for providing access to parking garages, locks, and vending machines, to solve
problems associated with smart card programmable remote control devices which in
turn function to operate home appliances as claimed. The mere fact that the prior art
may be modified in the manner suggested by the Examiner does not make the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the desirability of the modification.
In re Fritch, 972 F. 2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In our
view, given the disparity of problems addressed by the applied prior art references, and
the differing solutions proposed by them, any attempt to combine them in the manner
proposed by the Examiner could only come from Appellants’ own disclosure and not
from any teaching or suggestion in the references themselves.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007