Appeal 2007-0843
Application 09/725,393
Here, we find the ordinarily skilled artisan who possessed knowledge
and skills relating to telecommunications networks would have been capable
of combining Bruckman’s dynamic packet fragmentation system with
Tiedemann’s CDMA network in the manner suggested by the Examiner for
the purpose of realizing a faster and more efficient data communications
network. Furthermore, we find Tiedemann explicitly discloses the
advantage of assigning the maximum scheduled transmission rate that can be
used by each remote station for high speed data transmission on the reverse
link (col. 7, 29-32).
We need not reach the issue of whether the Examiner has established
a proper motivation to combine Bruckman and AAPA under §103, because
we find that Bruckman, as modified by Tiedemann, teaches or suggests all
the limitations of representative claim 1, as discussed supra. We find that
the teachings of AAPA are cumulative to Tiedemann and unnecessary to
support the rejection. It is proper to affirm a rejection based upon the
teachings of a lesser number of references than those relied upon by the
Examiner. In affirming a multiple reference rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, the Board may rely on one reference alone in an obviousness
rationale without designating it as a new ground of rejection. In re Bush,
296 F.2d 491, 496, 131 USPQ 263, 266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363
F.2d 455, 458, n.2, 150 USPQ 441, 444, n.2 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, for at least the aforementioned reasons, we conclude the
Examiner has met the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013