Appeal No. 2001-0654
Application 08/910,315
transmitter. See page 3 of the Examiner’s answer. However, the
Examiner argues that Emery teaches personal identity information
in column 2, lines 16 through 49, and column 7, lines 25 through
33. See page 3 of the Examiner’s answer.
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Examiner
bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). See also In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468,
1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984). The Examiner can
satisfy this burden by showing that some objective teaching in
the prior art or knowledge generally available to one of ordinary
skill in the art suggests the claimed subject matter. In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir.. 1988).
Only if this initial burden is met does the burden of coming
forward with evidence or argument shift to the Appellants.
Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1445, 24 USPQ at 1444. See also Piasecki, 745
F.2d at 1472, 223 USPQ at 788.
An obviousness analysis commences with a review and
consideration of all the pertinent evidence and arguments. “[I]n
reviewing the [Examiner’s decision on appeal, the Board must
necessarily weigh all of the evidence and arguments.” In re
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007