Appeal No. 1998-0957
Application 08/258,409
transceiver to that power source. The examiner has not
addressed the obviousness of this difference because the
examiner is mistakenly of the view that Anders teaches this
feature. Since the examiner has failed to identify and
address the obviousness of this specific difference between
the claimed invention and the applied prior art, the examiner
has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. As
noted above, the failure to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness requires that this rejection not be sustained.
With respect to the rejection of claims 22-24 based on
the teachings of Stevens and Anders, the examiner relies on
the teachings in the same manner discussed above. Appellant
points out the same deficiencies in the applied prior art as
discussed above. Since the examiner has not properly
addressed the differences between the claimed invention and
the teachings of the applied prior art for the reasons
discussed above, we do not sustain this rejection of claims
22-24.
In summary, we have not sustained any of the
examiner’s rejections of claims 1-45. Therefore, the decision
of the examiner rejecting claims 1-45 is reversed.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007