Appeal No. 95-4256
Application 08/127,519
noise. Next, data representing a prior-to-turn-off state of the set is stored, and a comparison is
made of this data with data representing a turned-off state when noise is removed. If the data
are the same, the set is automatically turned on. If the data are different, the set is re-initialized
by placing it back into the original operative condition using the first data (the data representing
a prior-to-turn-off state). That is, the data representing the turned-off state is corrected using the
data representing the prior-to-turn-off state. The set is then turned on manually.
The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103
After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the
examiner and the appellant, we have concluded that the rejection should not be sustained.
The examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness.
That burden has not been satisfied because there is no showing by the examiner of some
objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in
the art would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references. In re
Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1262, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It appears from the
answer, that the examiner has just assumed that the teachings of Hakamada and Testin are
combinable.
With respect to claims 1-4, the examiner acknowledges that Hakamada fails to
disclose 1) a TV set that is turned off due to noise, 2) the step of determining if the set is turned
off due to noise, 3) the step of comparing data representing two different states (a prior-to-turn-
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007