Appeal No. 1997-0339
Application 08/330,768
& Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664
(Fed. Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS
Hosp. System., 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).
We first take the independent claim 1. We have evaluated
the positions of Appellants [brief, pages 7 to 10] and
Examiner [answer, pages 3 and 6 to 8]. We find that, contrary
to Appellants’ argument, claim 1 does not exclude by explicit
language a locally generated complement data signal. Thus, in
fig.2 of Rickard, 30 is a true data signal and the output of
inverter 34 is a complement data signal, element 32 is the
claimed selecting means and 35 the capturing means.
Therefore, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1 and
its grouped claims 2, 4 and 5 over Rickard.
With respect to claim 3, Appellants again argue [brief,
page 10] that Rickard locally generates an inverse of a data
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007