Appeal 2006-1914 Application 09/764,609 1 other instruments and wires, and will actually pull against the direction I 2 need to move the hand piece. In addition, for optical systems, it is 3 important to be able to face the tracking device towards the camera at all 4 times. The inclusion of wires makes it more difficult to properly angle 5 the tracking device so the device is visible to the cameras. (Klarsfeld, p. 6 2, ¶ 6 / c.) 7 8 38. . . . the wireless, hardwired issue is so important that a number of 9 companies that make tracking implements and devices have abandoned 10 hard-wired active optical systems in favor of passive wireless optical 11 systems and have not developed wireless active optical tracking devices 12 as claimed in the present application. (Klarsfeld, p. 2, ¶ 6. / e.) 13 14 PRINCIPLES OF LAW 15 On appeal, Appellants are responsible for showing that the Examiner 16 erroniously rejectied the claims by not establishing a legally sufficient basis 17 for combining the teachings of the prior art. Appellants may show this by 18 demonstrating that the Examiner failed to provide sufficient evidence to 19 show that one having ordinary skill in the art would have done what 20 Appellant did. United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39 (1966); In re Kahn, 441 21 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006); DyStar 22 Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick, Co., 464 F.3d 23 1356, 1360-1361, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1645 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The mere fact 24 that all the claimed elements or steps appear in the prior art is not per se 25 sufficient to establish that it would have been obvious to combine those 26 elements. United States v. Adams, id; Smith Industries Medical Systems, 27 Inc. v. Vital Signs, Inc., 183 F.3d 1347, 1356, 51 USPQ2d 1415, 1420 (Fed. 28 Cir. 1999). The Supreme Court, in KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 29 1727, WL1237837, 82 USPQ2d 1385, (2007) stated that “[t]throughout this 14Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013