Appeal 2006-1914
Application 09/764,609
1 Appellants additionally contend that they submitted evidence in the
2 form of two Declarations to the Examiner showing the unobvious nature of
3 the invention as claimed, and that the Examiner dismissed this evidence as
4 statements which amount to an affirmation that the claimed subject matter
5 functions as it was intended to function. (Br. 4-5.)
6 With regard to claim 23, Appellants further contend that the only
7 release button described in Chader is to enable the device to be coupled to
8 the hard-wired system, and that without the hard wiring, there would be no
9 need for a release button. (Br. 5.)
10 The Examiner contends that the general concept of and common
11 understanding of wireless transmission is old and well known in the signal
12 transmission art and is well within the level of ordinary skill. The Examiner
13 opines that one of ordinary skill in the art is limited to either hard wired or
14 wireless transmission of signals the selection of either known option would
15 have been obvious to the skilled artisan, and that one would have been
16 motivated by the inherent desirable features of using wireless transmissions
17 over wired transmissions. (Answer 3-4.)
18 The Examiner adds that upon modifying Chader to be wireless, the
19 communications would be solely wireless because it doesn't make much
20 sense to wirelessly transmit some signals while transmitting others over a
21 hard wire. (Answer 5.)
22 In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend that:
23 In this instance, the term "activation button" is explicitly used
24 and described in the specification as being a button connected
25 to the smart instrument that may be used to cause the computer
26 system to selectively obtain information from the smart
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013