Appeal No. 97-1166
Application 08/198,848
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v.
Montefiore Hospital, 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).
Appellant has addressed the Deere factual determinations
noted above, and appellant argues that the applied references,
whether considered singly or together, do not teach the
recitations of claim 1. Specifically, appellant argues that the
claimed spatial relationship of the three electrical contacts
along the magnetic track and the two current paths formed by a
magnetic field passing under the three contacts at different
times is not taught or suggested by the references cited by the
examiner [brief, pages 7-10]. The examiner responds that Mowry
is cited for the teaching of three electrical contacts and Miura
is cited for the current paths being established at different
times as the track moves [answer, pages 9-14]. Appellant
disputes that the teachings of the applied prior art would lead
to the claimed invention.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007