Ex Parte Wolf et al - Page 20

            Appeal 2007-1326                                                                                  
            Application 10/237,067                                                                            

        1   providing power and protecting the receiver are beyond the skill of a person of                   
        2   ordinary skill.  But the person of ordinary skill would be a designer, not an                     
        3   operator of a model train.  Both Ireland and Young demonstrate the technologically                
        4   high level of complexity and diversity required of one of ordinary skill.                         
        5       The level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art is a factual inquiry.  The level of          
        6   skill to beneficially practice an invention with several discrete subcomponents, all              
        7   of which would be of concern to an ordinary artisan, necessarily requires skill in                
        8   each of the subcomponents and the skill to harmonize their operation.  The                        
        9   ordinary artisan must have a higher level perspective, as he must first decide one                
       10   subcomponent, and depending on the decision, decide another subcomponent.                         
       11   Further, designing an optimal technologically diverse invention requires                          
       12   knowledge of the technology and systems engineering.  DyStar Textilfarben GmbH                    
       13   & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1362-63, 80 USPQ2d                       
       14   1641, 1646-47 (2006).  Thus, such a person would have the perspective to                          
       15   recognize these problems and a knowledge of the relevant technologies, such as                    
       16   component packaging, transceiver design, and electric power design.                               
       17       And further, Young’s receiver in the train illustrates both that these problems               
       18   are foreseeable, and the manner in which many of these problems might be                          
       19   resolved.  As to the contention that it would be particularly difficult to return                 
       20   Young’s signal via the track, claim 106 does not recite such a requirement.  As to                
       21   the Appellants’ contention that Young suggests interference problems with bi-                     
       22   directional communication, the Appellants do not contend that solutions to such                   
       23   interference were unknown at the time of the invention, but only that it would have               
       24   been difficult to solve the problem.  Therefore, although these technological                     
       25   problems might be difficult, the very fact that Young was able to show such a                     

                                                      20                                                      


Page:  Previous  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013