Appeal No. 2006-2106 Page 5
Application No. 09/585,767
locations, Calaman, impliedly recognizing the problem that users of
communication devices may not be familiar with the official local language used
for emergency communication, provides emergency contact information in the
local official language of the user’s sensed geographical location. (Calaman,
column 3, lines 25-28 and column 6, lines 7-40). As the Federal Circuit recently
stated,” ... this court has consistently stated that a court or examiner may find a
motivation to combine prior art references in the nature of the problem to be
solved.” See Ruiz v. A.B. Chance, 357 F.3d 1270, 1274, 69 USPQ2d 1686,
1690 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See, also, Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics,
Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996), citing In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d. 1048, 1054, 189 USPQ 143, 149 (CCPA 1976) (considering
the problem to be solved in a determination of obviousness). In our view, the
collective teachings of Raith and Calaman would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill that the provision of emergency communication contact information
to a communication device user in the local official language of the user’s sensed
geographical location would have served as an obvious enhancement to the cell
phone emergency contact feature of Raith.
We further find to be without merit Appellant’s contention (Brief, page 8;
Reply Brief, page 3) that Calaman’s statement that cell phones are unsuitable for
certain physical distress emergency situations “teaches away” from a
combination with the cell phone device of Raith. Each reference must be read,
not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007