Appeal 2007-1302
Application 09/818,003
of the document. In fact, this is one of the stated purposes of the token
communications scheme in Eldridge anyway.
Additionally, we sustain the stated rejection of the Examiner relying
upon the combination of teachings and showings in Eldridge and
Neukermans as set forth by the Examiner initially in the statement of the
rejection of representative independent claim 1 at page 6 of the Answer and
greatly expanded upon beginning at page 28 of the Answer. At a minimum,
the teachings of Neukermans would have enhanced the already
comprehensive capability of Eldridge, even to the point of adding a new
kind of token data from the teachings of Neukermans to the system of
Eldridge as best explained by the Examiner at page 29 of the Answer.
We do not agree with Appellant’s observation at page 11 of the
principal Brief that the addition of the teachings of Neukermans to those of
Eldridge would have destroyed the apparatus of Eldridge for its intended
purpose. First, the proper consideration of applied prior art within 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 is to combine or not to combine teachings of the respective reference
rather than to combine structures. Even so, the addition of a structural
element as a scanner in the PDA of Eldridge clearly would have been an
obvious enhancement to the structural system and functional capabilities of
Eldridge. As noted at the middle of page 10 of the principal Brief on
Appeal, we are well aware of the purpose of the tokens of Eldridge as
indicated at column 1 of this reference, that the token may be utilized to
communicate the transmission of document information rather than a
lengthy document itself. Since document data per se is already transmitted
within the document token figure 3B of Eldridge, the addition of the small
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013