Appeal 2007-1844
Application 10/012,200
person having ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41, 82
USPQ2d at 1396.
ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) REJECTION
Independent claims 1, 11, and 13 require a multimedia unit that
comprises a plurality of receiver units. (Br. Claims Appendix). We find that
Murakami’s disclosure does not reasonably teach this limitation to render
the cited claims unpatentable. Particularly, we find insufficient support in
the record before us for the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness. As set
forth in the Principles of Law section above, the Supreme Court has held
that in analyzing the obviousness of combining elements, a court need not
find specific teachings, but rather may consider "the background knowledge
possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art" and "the inferences
and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ."
See KSR at 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. To be nonobvious,
an improvement must be "more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions." Id. However, the basis for an
obviousness rejection cannot be merely conclusory statements; there must be
some "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness.” Id.
As detailed in the Findings of Fact section above, we have found that
Murakami teaches a node having a receiver/transmitter pair and at least a
multimedia unit. (Findings 3-5.) We agree with the Examiner that one of
ordinary skill would have readily recognized that the disclosed
receiver/transmitter pair is equivalent to a first transceiver unit. Similarly,
the ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that each of the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013