Appeal No. 1997-1183
Application No. 08/066,362
47 USPQ2d 1523, 1529 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We find that the Examiner has provided a
teaching or convincing line of reasoning why one skilled in the art would have desired to
use negative differential resistance devices in multi-valued logic. Therefore, we conclude
that the Examiner has provided a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim
1.
“To reject claims in an application under section 103, an Examiner must show an
unrebutted prima facie case of obviousness. See In re Deuel, 51 F.3d 1552, 1557, 34
USPQ2d 1210, 1214 (Fed. Cir. 1995). In the absence of a proper prima facie case of
obviousness, an applicant who complies with the other statutory requirements is entitled to
a patent. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). On appeal to the Board, an applicant can overcome a rejection by showing
insufficient evidence of prima facie obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with
evidence of secondary indicia of nonobviousness.” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355,
47 USPQ2d 1453 (CAFC 1998). Here, we find that appellants have not overcome the
prima facie case of obviousness by showing insufficient evidence by the Examiner of
nonobviousness nor have appellants provided evidence of secondary indicia of
nonobviousness. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claim 1.
With respect to the combination of Kawahito with (Singh or Micheel) applied
against claims 1-4, appellants argue that “Kawahito does not disclose or suggest the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007