Appeal No. 1997-1236
Application No. 08/212,385
reason must stem from some teaching, suggestion or implication
in the prior art as a whole or knowledge generally available
to 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).
It is the position of the examiner that Keolian
discloses the claimed device except for the RF input signal.
The examiner notes that Kiasaleh teaches an interferometer
system with an RF signal input and a signal conversion from RF
to optical. The examiner concludes that it would have been
obvious to provide RF signals to the Keolian device. The
examiner also asserts that the fact that the claimed signals
are navigation RF signals does not patentably distinguish over
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007