Appeal No. 2000-1675
Application No. 08/855,279
(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 Hosp. Sys., Inc. v.
Montefiore Hosp., 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).
With respect to claim 1, the sole independent claim in the
case, the Examiner, as the basis for the obviousness rejection,
proposes to modify the magnetoresistive sensing element
disclosure of Dovek. According to the Examiner (Answer, page 4),
Dovek discloses the claimed invention except for the formation of
a sensing pattern with a substantially circular shape.
Nevertheless, to address this deficiency, the Examiner asserts
the obviousness to the skilled artisan of modifying the existing
sensing pattern of Dovek to form a sensing pattern with a
substantially circular shape “ . . . in order to improve the
sensing characteristics of the sensing element.” (Id.)
In response, Appellant asserts several arguments in support
of the position that the Examiner has not established proper
motivation for the proposed modification of the applied
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007