Appeal No. 1998-3326 Page 5 Application No. 08/498,819 In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. Section 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 appellants' argument. The examiner asserts, "Miyazaki discloses an invention substantially as claimed, including a data processing ('DP') system comprising ... initializing means [column 4 (line 67) - column 5 (line 12)]". (Examiner's Answer at 3.) The appellants argue, “neither Miyazaki nor Okada et al. disclose or suggest the fundamental concept of initialization means resetting the counter in response to a signal from an external circuit." (Appeal Br. at 11.) “‘[T]he main purpose of the examination, to which every application is subjected, is to try to make sure that whatPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007