Appeal No. 1997-3818
Application 08/208,517
57 F.3d 1573, 1579, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1995)
(Board did not err in adopting the approach that the level of
skill in the art was best determined by the references of
record).
D. Appellants' burden of persuasion on appeal
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453,
1455 (Fed. Cir. 1998), explains that
[t]o 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 insuffi- cient evidence of prima
facie obviousness or by rebutting the
prima facie case with evidence of secondary
indicia of nonobvious- ness. See id.
E. The § 103 rejection of claims 1-4 based on Bowater and
Grants
Claim 1 is directed to the technique of obtaining
information about an external memory by sampling, at a
predetermined time in a memory cycle, protocol signals
provided by the memory.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007