Appeal No. 1999-0261
Application No. 08/703,496
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 each of the appealed independent claims
1, 6, and 13, the Examiner proposes to modify the circuit
board module removal and insertion system disclosed by Herrig.
In the Examiner’s analysis, it is suggested (Answer, page 3)
that Herrig discloses the claimed invention except for the
permitting of only a first electrical device to communicate
over a bus during the pausing of data communications over the
bus. Nevertheless, the Examiner asserts the obviousness to
the skilled artisan “...to have a control circuit to provide
the efficient communication control on the bus during the
connection transition of a second device.” (Id).
In response, Appellants assert several arguments in
support of their position that the Examiner has not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007