Appeal No. 2000-1703
Application No. 08/963,545
has cited no specific teachings in Gutzwiller that relates to a
repeater suitable for use within a home (reply brief, page 1).
In response, the Examiner asserts that one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been motivated to modify Gutzwiller and add
a known element since “such addition of known elements would help
extend the range of the master node without requiring additional
transmission power” (answer, page 5). The Examiner further
argues that the modification would have been obvious and within
the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art since the
particular protocols are not claimed (answer, page 6).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. See In re Rijckaert, 9 F.3d 1531, 1532, 28 USPQ2d
1955, 1956 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown
by some objective teaching in the prior art or by knowledge
generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art that
would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings
of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Even when obviousness is based on a single prior art reference,
there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007