Appeal No. 1999-0859
Application No. 08/330,972
Greg Magin (Magin), “A Robust Signaling Technique for Part 15 RF
Control Network Applications”, RF Design, No. 4, pages 29-38,
(April 1993).
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6-8, and 10-16 stand finally rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103. As evidence of obviousness, the Examiner
offers Gorrie in view of Oto and Magin with respect to claims 1,
3, 4, 6, 7, and 10-16, and adds Perlich to the basic combination
with respect to claim 8.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the Briefs and Answer for the1
respective details.
OPINION
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent
upon the Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the
Examiner is expected to make the factual determinations set
forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18, 148 USPQ
1The Appeal Brief was filed June 11, 1998 (Paper no. 18). In response
to the Examiner’s Answer dated September 2, 1998 (Paper No. 19), a Reply Brief
was filed October 26, 1998 (Paper No. 20) , which was acknowledged and entered
by the Examiner as indicated in the communication dated December 21, 1998
(Paper No. 21).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007