Appeal No. 1997-1783
Application No. 08/421,016
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 appellant has over- come
the prima facie case of obviousness by showing insufficient evidence by the examiner of
nonobviousness. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 nor its dependent
claims 2 and 3.
Similarly, independent claims 4 and 7 contain language to the programming and
storage of movement speed data defining speed at which the gauge movement is to move
when the microprocessor acts on gauge signal data commanding a change in the position
of the gauge movement. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 7 and
their dependent claims 5, 6, and 8.
CONCLUSION
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007