Appeal No. 1997-1378
Application No. 08/065,328
Turning to a consideration of dependent claims 6, 7, 16,
and 17 which are directed to the use of a background noise
factor in determining signal quality, we sustain the
obviousness rejection of these claims as well. In the
Examiner’s analysis (Answer, page 5), the skilled artisan
having been motivated by a desire to increase the accuracy of
signal, quality determination in the combined system of
Natarajan and Imaseki , would have found it obvious to utilize5
a background noise factor in determining signal quality as
taught by Stengel. In our view, the Examiner’s line of
reasoning is reasonable enough to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness so as to shift the burden to Appellants to come
forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima
facie case.
Appellants’ initial argument in response (Brief, page 17)
contends that, contrary to the Examiner’s assertion, Stengel
does not disclose all of the recited limitations of the
266-67 (CCPA 1961); In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458, n.2, 150
USPQ 441, 444, n.2 (CCPA 1966).
5As discussed supra, it is our finding that the teachings
of Natarajan and Imaseki are cumulative to each other.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007