Opinion ID: 803097
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Principle of Operation and Physical Structure

Text: According to Mouttet, the Board erred in finding that Falk does not suggest that using electronic wires instead of optical paths would destroy Falk’s ability to operate as a programmable arithmetic unit. Mouttet argues that eliminating the optical components from Falk impermisIN RE MOUTTET 14 sibly destroys its principle of operation. He cites In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959), for the proposition that if the combination of references would change the principle of operation of the prior art, then the teachings cannot suffice to render claims obvious. We find the Board’s determination that eliminating the optical components of Falk would not destroy its principle of operation to be supported by substantial evidence. As the examiner found, the type of circuitry used is the main difference between Mouttet’s invention, which is based on electrical conductivity, and Falk’s invention, which is based on optical paths. But this difference does not affect the operability of Mouttet’s broadly claimed device—a programmable arithmetic processor. The Board found, and we agree, that the principle of operation of Falk’s computing device is its high level ability to receive inputs into a programmable crossbar array and processing the output to obtain an arithmetic result. Similarly, Mouttet’s claim 1 operates by combining Falk, Das, and Terepin to receive inputs into a programmable crossbar array and processing the output to obtain an arithmetic result. Stated differently, the examiner saw nothing in the programming and processing of junction states in Falk that is unique to its optical implementation, and Mouttet has not shown otherwise. Thus, the Board’s determination that the difference in the circuitry—electrical versus optical—does not affect the overall principle of operation of a programmable arithmetic processor was supported by substantial evidence. See, e.g., In re Umbarger, 407 F.2d 425, 430-31 (CCPA 1969) (finding Ratti inapplicable where the modified apparatus will operate “on the same principles as before”). 15 IN RE MOUTTET Mouttet further objects that replacing Falk’s optical crossbar circuitry with Das’s electrical crossbar circuitry would destroy the physical structure of Falk. Mouttet argues that there is no evidence that electrical crossbar circuitry would have been recognized by ordinarily skilled artisans as equivalent to, or able to be substituted for, optical crossbar circuitry. Any alleged nonequivalence in the type of circuit is irrelevant to the Board’s determination since the examiner did not rely on art-recognized equivalence in substituting the crossbar arrays. It is well-established that a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements. In re Etter, 756 F.2d 852, 859 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (“Etter’s assertions that Azure cannot be incorporated in Ambrosio are basically irrelevant, the criterion being not whether the references could be physically combined but whether the claimed inventions are rendered obvious by the teachings of the prior art as a whole.”); In re Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under review.”); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference . . . .”). Thus, it was not requisite to the Board’s § 103(a) determination that Das’s features be deemed equivalent for purposes of substitution into Falk’s device. Rather, the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary skill in the art. Id. The Board properly found that an electrical engineer with several years of related industry experience would indeed have recognized that Falk’s IN RE MOUTTET 16 arithmetic processor could have been combined with Das’s wired crossbar array to predictably yield Mouttet’s claimed computing device. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 421. We further note that Mouttet’s objection to substituting the electrical components of Das into the optical crossbar array of Falk is based on an incorrect assumption: that, because the Board designated Falk as the “base reference,” Falk’s optically-based crossbar implementation—vis-à-vis Das’s electrically-based implementation— is a controlling principle of operation that any prior art combination must preserve. But where the relevant factual inquiries underlying an obviousness determination are otherwise clear, characterization by the examiner of prior art as “primary” and “secondary” is merely a matter of presentation with no legal significance. See In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961) (Rich, J.); In re Krammes, 314 F.2d 813, 816-17 (CCPA 1963). While we recognize that there may be some cases in which relevant factual determinations inhere in such characterization of prior art references, this case is not one. Here, as found by the Board, Das clearly teaches what is at the core of Mouttet’s invention: a crossbar of parallel conductive wires with programmable molecular-scale switches at the junctions. Das at 483-84. Using Das’s principles of operation, one skilled in the art readily could have made a larger computer processor system using known input, output, and A/D converter units, as taught in Falk and Terepin. Thus, from either perspective, the claimed invention would have been obvious under § 103(a). 17 IN RE MOUTTET