Appeal No. 2006-3126 Page 13
Application No. 10/154,060
[brief, page 10, ¶4, cont’d page 11]. Because a lower-power communication
link is a component that is selectively disabled according to user preference
(i.e., in a low battery situation), we find that the combination of Flynn and
Rusch teaches all that is claimed.
Appellant further argues that the examiner has impermissibly relied
upon hindsight in formulating the rejection [brief, page 9].
We do not find appellant’s argument persuasive that the examiner has
impermissibly used hindsight in formulating the rejection. We note that the
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined that the motivation
to combine under §103 must come from a teaching or suggestion within the
prior art, within the nature of the problem to be solved, or within the general
knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the field of the invention, to look to
particular sources, to select particular elements, and to combine them as
combined by the inventor. Ruiz v. A.B. Chance Co., 234 F.3d 654, 665, 57
USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2000) [emphasis added]. In the instant case,
we note that the examiner has taken the motivation to combine the
references directly from the Rusch reference at col. 6, lines 11 and 12 (i.e.,
providing the user with a more gratifying wireless communication
experience). Therefore, we find that the examiner has provided an adequate
motivation that reasonably sets forth why an artisan would have been
motivated to modify and improve Flynn’s wireless communication device
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007