Appeal No. 1997-0202
Application No. 08/247,709
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).
With respect to independent claim 9, Appellants’ arguments
(Brief, pages 14-16) focus on the alleged deficiency of Ehrlich
in teaching the various operation patterns of the warning light
system dependent on deceleration signals reaching a plurality of
threshold levels as claimed. In the Examiner’s view (Answer,
page 4), Ehrlich’s increasing blink rate pattern dependent on
increasing deceleration signal levels would necessarily
correspond to threshold levels which trigger the onset of each
faster blink rate period.
After careful review of the Ehrlich reference in light of
Appellants’ arguments and the claimed subject matter, it is our
opinion that, regardless of the merits of the Examiner’s
interpretation of the claimed “threshold level” language, all of
the claim limitations in independent claim 9 are not met. We
note that sub-paragraph e) of independent claim 9 requires the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007