Appeal No. 1997-4125 Page 7
Application No. 08/261,523
We begin by noting the following principles from In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the
examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a
prima facie case of obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Only if that burden is met, does the burden
of coming forward with evidence or argument shift
to the applicant. Id. "A prima facie case of
obviousness is established when the teachings from
the prior art itself would appear to have suggested
the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary
skill in the art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782,
26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147
(CCPA 1976)). If the examiner fails to establish a
prima facie case, the rejection is improper and will
be overturned. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5
USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
With these in mind, we address the appellants’ argument.
The appellants make the following argument.
There is no teaching or suggestion within these
references that would lead one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine them in the manner proposed by
the Examiner. Moreover, even if they were so
combined, the resultant combination would still lack
the claimed structure wherein the receiving node
includes means to phase align the digital data
stream on each of the parallel bus lines separately
with respect to the separately transmitted clock
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007