Appeal 2007-1326
Application 10/237,067
1 Also, “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
2 likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” (See KSR
3 supra). Thus, the combination of the familiar radio frequency communication with
4 bi-directional communication is likely to be obvious because it in itself produces
5 no more than bi-directional radio communication.
6 The Appellants contend, however, that neither reference suggests combining
7 bi-directional communication with an input communication signal generated
8 without manipulation of said power signal. However, the Examiner has presented
9 the combination of Young and Ireland as the basis for the rejection, and the
10 combination of Young’s input communication signal generated without
11 manipulation of said power signal with Ireland’s bi-directional communication
12 clearly meets these claim limitations. Thus we do not find this argument
13 persuasive.
14 The Appellants next contend that neither Ireland nor Young provides the
15 motivation for the combination. But clearly, Ireland provides several reasons that
16 the practitioner of Young’s model railroad would have for bi-directional
17 communication. The Appellants never quite address this; they only state that a
18 practitioner of Ireland would not have been motivated to adopt Young’s technique.
19 They only say that one starting with Young would never have a reason for bi-
20 directional communication. But Ireland clearly provides such reasons. Thus we
21 do not find this argument persuasive.
22 Next we come to the Appellants’ argument that adding bi-directionality to
23 Young is simply beyond the expertise of one of ordinary skill. The Appellants
24 expound a litany of horribles that such a practitioner would have to overcome. The
25 Appellants argue that designing a transceiver, accommodating the limited space,
19
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013