Appeal No. 1996-0774 Page 8
Application No. 08/048,117
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot find that Fumiaki
teaches the claimed reciprocal data. The absence of the
claimed element from the reference negates anticipation.
Therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 1 and 5-6 under
35 U.S.C. § 102. Next, we consider the obviousness of claims
2-4 and 7-9.
Obviousness of Claims 2-4 and 7-9
We begin our consideration of the obviousness of claims
2-4 and 7-9 by recalling that in rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the patent examiner bears the initial burden of
establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. A prima facie
case is established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject
matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. If the
examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, an obviousness
rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re
Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir.
1993).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007