Appeal No. 1997-2151
Application No. 08/221,959
Claims 14, 28-31 and 33-41
“To reject claims in an application under section 103, an examiner must 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 appellant has not overcome
the prima facie case of obviousness by showing insufficient evidence by the examiner of
obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case with secondary evidence. Therefore, we
will sustain the rejection of claims 14, 28 and 35.
Similarly, as discussed above, claim 14 contains similar limitations as claim 28 with
the exception of the 10 MHZ limitation and use of the leading edge for timing purposes.
Again, we agree with the examiner concerning the prima facie case of obviousness set
forth in the answer. (See answer at pages 10-16.) Again, appellant has not shown
insufficient evidence by the examiner of obviousness or by rebutting the prima facie case
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007