Appeal Number: 2006-1385
Application Number: 10/452,753
been led to modify the prior art or to combine prior art references to arrive at the
claimed invention. Such reason must stem from some teaching, suggestion or
implication in the prior art as a whole or knowledge generally available to one
having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d
1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta
Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir.
1985); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ
929, 933 (Fed. Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness.
Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
If that burden is met, the burden then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima
facie case with argument and/or evidence. Obviousness is then determined on the
basis of the evidence as a whole. See id.; In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228
USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ
785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ
143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner's position (Answer 3-5) is that Shridhara does
not disclose a jamming signal having a known pattern and a blanking signal having
a pattern similar to the jamming signal and synchronized with the jamming signal.
To overcome this deficiency of Shridhara, the Examiner turns to Beesley for a
teaching of a jamming signal having a known pattern and reducing the jamming
signal with a blanking signal having a pattern similar to and synchronized with the
jamming signal (id.).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013