Appeal No. 97-0984
Application 08/546,345
one having ordinary skill in the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v.
Rudkin-Wiley Corp.,
837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert.
denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v. Delta
Resins
& Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664
(Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS
Hosp. Sys., Inc. v. Montefiore Hosp., 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 1, the examiner
cites Shay and Mahabadi as each teaching all the features of
claim 1 except for the details of the inverter set forth in
the last seven lines of the claim. The examiner notes that
an inverter as recited in claim 1 was notoriously well-known
in the art and was used for conserving power [answer, pages
3-4]. The examiner points to Masuoka and Ludwig to support
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007