Appeal 2007-1535
Application 10/626,969
82 USPQ2d at 1396. Such a showing requires “some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. . . . [H]owever, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings
directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court
can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of
ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d
at 1396 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336
(Fed. Cir. 2006)).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellant to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
Regarding representative claim 1,6 the Examiner's rejection
essentially finds that Hwang ‘407 teaches a prealarm warning system with
every claimed feature except for carrying out communications using a data
bus extending throughout the vehicle. Although the Examiner concedes that
Hwang ‘407 fails to indicate that the data communication line between
emulator 102 and alarm controller 103 is a bus, the Examiner nonetheless
contends that a bus is a well-known type of communication line in vehicle
security systems (Answer 3-4).
The Examiner also cites Suman as teaching the “desirability of using
data bus 111 for communicating data for indication of vehicle security.” In
6 Appellant argues the independent claims together as a group. See Br. 8 and
12. Accordingly, we select independent claim 1 as representative. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013