Appeal No. 1998-0476
Application 08/397,157
Flag 22 is set for a “certain time”, page 8, lines 19 and 20.
Thus, there could be some confusion as to what the claimed
“predetermined time” relates to in the specification.
However, considering the context of the claim language,
Appellants’ explanation in the brief removes any possible
confusion. This, along with Appellants’ explanation in the
brief of what is meant by “switching the microcomputer from
time to time”, make it clear what Appellants regard as their
invention.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claim 7.
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie
case. It is the burden of the Examiner to establish why one
having ordinary skill in the art would have been led to the
claimed invention by the reasonable teachings or suggestions
found in the prior art, or by a reasonable inference to the
artisan contained in such teachings or suggestions. In re
Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 995, 217 USPQ 1, 6 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007