Appeal No. 95-4256 Application 08/127,519 noise. Next, data representing a prior-to-turn-off state of the set is stored, and a comparison is made of this data with data representing a turned-off state when noise is removed. If the data are the same, the set is automatically turned on. If the data are different, the set is re-initialized by placing it back into the original operative condition using the first data (the data representing a prior-to-turn-off state). That is, the data representing the turned-off state is corrected using the data representing the prior-to-turn-off state. The set is then turned on manually. The Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 After consideration of the positions and arguments presented by both the examiner and the appellant, we have concluded that the rejection should not be sustained. The examiner bears the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. That burden has not been satisfied because there is no showing by the examiner of some objective teaching in the prior art or that knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1262, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1783 (Fed. Cir. 1992). It appears from the answer, that the examiner has just assumed that the teachings of Hakamada and Testin are combinable. With respect to claims 1-4, the examiner acknowledges that Hakamada fails to disclose 1) a TV set that is turned off due to noise, 2) the step of determining if the set is turned off due to noise, 3) the step of comparing data representing two different states (a prior-to-turn- 3Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007