Appeal No. 2000-2207
Application No. 08/968,379
the art. Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044,
1051, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825
(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 independent claims 23, 27, and 38,
Appellants’ arguments in response to the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection assert a failure by the Examiner to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness since all of the claim limitations are
not taught or suggested by the applied prior art. After careful
review of the applied Thrower and Hiroyuki references in light of
the arguments of record, we are in general agreement with
Appellants’ arguments as set forth in the Brief.
Initially, we find ourselves in agreement with Appellants’
assertion (Brief, pages 7 and 8) that, contrary to the Examiner’s
contention, the signal provided over the PD line in Thrower is a
control signal, not a sensing signal. Our interpretation of the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007