Appeal No. 2000-0234 Page 6
Application No. 08/730,236
Having determined what subject matter is being claimed,
the next inquiry is whether the subject matter is obvious.
“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 Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993)(citing 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, 783, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, although Elmer discloses a “backup light . . .
being flashed,” col. 1, ll. 22-25, the examiner does not
allege, let alone show, that the flashing is performed at
microsecond intervals to create a strobe effect. To the
contrary, we agree with the appellants that "Elmer just
teaches flashing a light at regular second speeds, as is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007