Appeal No. 2000-0326 Page 10
Application No. 08/644,465
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, 782, 26 USPQ2d 1529, 1531
(Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051,
189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976)).
Here, the examiner fails to show that Menich, the
secondary reference, cures the defect of Tarallo. Menich
discloses that “[w]hen mobile station 125 moves beyond the
boundary of DS CDMA cell 100 into an AMPS cell, for example
cell 106, DS CDMA base-station 130 detects the need for
handoff by employing the results of the pilot measurements
supplied by mobile station 125.” Col. 4, ll. 24-29. The
examiner does not show that the reference’s pilot measurements
represent a phase shift, let alone a measurement of a time
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007