Appeal No. 1999-0153
Application No. 08/488,394
Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed.
Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988); Ashland Oil, Inc. v.
Delta Resins & Refractories, Inc., 776 F.2d 281, 293, 227 USPQ
657, 664 (Fed. Cir. 1985), cert.denied, 475 U.S. 1017 (1986);
ACS Hospital Systems, Inc. v. Montefiore Hospital, 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).
Appellant’s response to the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1 asserts the Examiner’s failure to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness since all of the
claim limitations are not suggested or taught by the Stagier
reference. Initially, Appellants contend (Brief, page 4) that
the Examiner has provided no support for the conclusion that
the input of synchronous and asynchronous clock signals as
presently claimed to the multiplexers in Staiger rather than
selected delay times would be a matter of design choice.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007