Appeal No. 1998-2672
Application No. 07/955,768
Inc.,
776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ 657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.
denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986); ACS Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 732 F.2d 1572, 1577, 221 USPQ 929, 933 (Fed.
Cir. 1984). These showings by the Examiner are an essential
part
of complying with the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of
obviousness. Note In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24
USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
With respect to independent claims 1, 9, 17, 20, 21, and
24, the Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness rejection,
proposes to modify the synchronization system disclosure of
Averbuch. In the Examiner’s view, Averbuch discloses a backup
clocking system for establishing synchronization as claimed
except for the feature of improving the accuracy of a second
clocking signal used for synchronization when a first clocking
signal is absent. To address this deficiency, the Examiner
turns to Ernst and concludes that:
Therefore, it would have been obvious
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007