Appeal No. 1997-0553
Application No. 08/409,191
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, 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Here, we find that appellants have
not overcome the convincing prima facie case of obviousness by showing insufficient
evidence of obviousness or by
rebutting the prima facie case with secondary evidence. Therefore, we will sustain the
rejection of claim 1.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner relies upon the teachings and
suggestions of Drumm, Donath and Dangelo. Essentially, the examiner relies upon the
combination of Drumm and Dangelo since Donath does not teach the reduction of circuits,
but only the need and use of timing information in analysis of a circuit. The examiner relies
upon Dangelo to teach and suggest the various well-known relation-
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007