Appeal No. 1998-0675 Page 5
Application No. 08/423,512
OPINION
After considering the record, we are persuaded that the
examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-9 and 11-17.
Accordingly, we reverse. We begin by noting the following
principles from
In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d 1955, 1956 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
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 Oetiker, 977
F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir.
1992).... "A prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art
itself would appear to have suggested the claimed
subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the
art." In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 782, 26 USPQ2d
1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart,
531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
With these principles in mind, we consider the examiner's
rejection and the appellant‘s argument.
The examiner asserts, "Reichelt et al. Teach [sic]
obtaining a signal which is based upon gas pedal return speed
which meets the claimed limitation of ascertaining at least
one factor dependent on a driving situation based upon pedal
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007