Appeal No. 1998-3342 Page 4
Application No. 08/540,943
In deciding this appeal, we considered the subject matter
on appeal and the rejections made by the examiner.
Furthermore, we duly considered the arguments and evidence of
the appellants and examiner. After considering the record, we
are persuaded that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-6.
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. 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)).
Regarding claims 1-6, the examiner alleges, "Sasaki shows
a radio receiver that includes circuitry for adjusting the
sensitivity of the receiver by decreasing attenuation when the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007