Appeal No. 95-4809
Application 08/104,251
Matthews 4,794,388 Dec. 27, 1988
Becker et al. (Becker) 5,136,690 Aug. 04, 1992
(effective filing date Aug. 07, 1989)
Claims 1, 5-8, 10-13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Matthews in view of Becker.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the Examiner and the
4
appellant, we make reference to the brief and answer for the details thereof.
OPINION
After a careful review of the evidence before us we disagree with the Examiner that
claims 1, 5-8, 10-13 and 15 are properly rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and we will not
sustain the rejection.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Turning to the rejection of independent claim 1, we find that the examiner has not
met the burden of setting forth a prima facie case of obviousness in rejecting claim 1. As
pointed out by our reviewing court, we must first determine the scope of the
claim. "[T]he name of the game is the claim." In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362, 1369, 47
USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The claim sets forth "remapping control of said
4The Examiner responded to the brief with an examiner's answer mailed October 29, 1998, (Paper
No. 19). We will refer to this second examiner's answer as simply the answer.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007