Opinion ID: 222190
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Applicant's Admitted Prior Art in view of Harrison

Text: In several of the patents at issue, the Board affirmed rejections of claims over the applicant's admitted prior art (AAPA) in view of U.S. patent no. 5,181,200 (Harrison) and other references. The relevant AAPA is best described in reference to '960 patent figure 1: The Board found that elements marked # 1 and # 3 in this figure along with the gateway switches constitute an electronic mail system. The Board further found that the Host CPU of element #2 constitutes an interface connecting the electronic mail system to the LAN, an information transmission network. The Board acknowledged that the AAPA does not disclose an interface with an RF network  indeed, the AAPA would then anticipate the claims. For this limitation, the Board relied on Harrison. The Board found that Harrison discloses a system that incorporates an RF network into an existing LAN. The Board held that it would have been obvious to incorporate the RF network of Harrison into element # 2 of the AAPA with the Host CPU acting as the interface. NTP argues that the Host CPU in Box # 2 is not the claimed interface between an electronic mail system and an RF information transmission network. Rather, NTP argues that the Host CPU is part of the electronic mail system itself. NTP also argues that even if the Host CPU could be an interface, Harrison does not cure the fact that the AAPA does not disclose an RF information transmission network. The Board stated that this modification would improve the RF subsystem of the [AAPA] by allowing portable units to connect without the need to dial in to a BX or PSTN. XXXX-XXXX J.A. 97-98. NTP argues that this reasoning makes no sense because the portable computers of the AAPA specifically connected via a phone line. As an initial matter, our construction of electronic mail [message] is irrelevant to this basis for rejection because the AAPA is the Background Art of the subject specifications that includes the four-item description of electronic mail. Further, the AAPA clearly teaches the other limitations of the claim with the exception of the RF network. Harrison teaches the use of an RF network to deliver data. Thus, the Board's findings regarding the content of the references are supported by substantial evidence. However, we hold that, as a matter of law, the claims would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art based on the combination of the AAPA and Harrison. The Board improperly relied on hindsight reasoning to piece together elements to arrive at the claimed invention. Care must be taken to avoid hindsight reconstruction by using `the patent in suit as a guide through the maze of prior art references, combining the right references in the right way so as to achieve the result of the claims in suit.' Grain Processing Corp. v. American-Maize Prods. Co., 840 F.2d 902, 907 (Fed.Cir.1988) (quoting Orthopedic Equip. Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d 1005, 1012 (Fed.Cir.1983)). Given any network, we could likely carve out a possible interface and combine it with Harrison to hold that the addition of a RF information transmission network would have been obvious. This type of piecemeal analysis is precisely the kind of hindsight that the Board must not engage in. The Board's position is further weakened by the fact that the AAPA already discloses an RF network that connects portable computers to the system. '960 patent col.2 ll.1-4. Thus, adding an RF network to element # 2 in the figure would render the RF network connecting the portable PCs in figure 1 superfluous. Because it is based on improper hindsight reasoning, we reverse the Board's rejections based on the AAPA in view of Harrison.