Appeal No. 1999-1742
Application No. 08/730,674
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant’s specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
We begin by observing that in rejecting claims under 35
U.S.C. § 103, the examiner bears the initial burden of
presenting a prima facie case of obviousness. In re Rijckaert,
9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992). Only if that burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with either evidence or argument shift to the applicant.
Id. If the examiner fails to establish a prima facie case, the
rejection is improper and will be overturned. In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Turning now to the subject matter set forth in the appealed
claims, independent claim 1 calls for an apparatus for sensing
the presence of an object comprising, inter alia, identifier
means securable to the object for providing an electromagnetic
return signal at a first frequency in response to a transmitted
-3-3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007