Appeal No. 2006-1729
Application No. 10/107,628
different manner, as required by the claim. Consequently, we do
not find error in the Examiner’s stated position, which concludes
that Rajski teaches a plurality of outputs and a plurality of
inputs that are coupled to the outputs, each being coupled
differently. Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 22, 24 through 26 and 28 through 34 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102.
III. Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, is the Rejection of Claims 1
through 21 as being unpatentable over the combination of Rajski
and Hong Proper?
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
13
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007