Appeal No. 94-4061
Application 07/659,683
disclosed quite clearly in appellant's specification
(Specification, page 11, line 26 to page 12, line 11).
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the
examiner's rejection of claims 3-7, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
In regard to the rejections of claims 3-7, 9, 12, 13,
15 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial
burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. In re
Rijckaert, 9F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ 2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993); In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443, 1444
(Fed. Cir. 1992). Only if the burden is met does the burden of
coming forward with evidence or argument shift to the applicant.
Id. 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).
Turning first to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of
claims 3-7, 9, 12, 13, 15 and 16 in view of Owens, we find that
Owens discloses a processor 10 with outputs at terminals BIT 1
and BIT 2 (Figure 1). A timer circuit 20, 25 is connected to the
output of BIT 2 and a bit pattern manipulator 15 is connected to
terminals BIT 2.
-12-
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007