Appeal No. 2001-0908
Application No. 08/833,342
burden of going forward then shifts to the applicant to overcome the prima facie case with argument
and/or evidence. Obviousness, is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and the
relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d
1443, 1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Hedges, 783 F.2d 1038, 1039, 228 USPQ 685, 686 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984); and In re
Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1052, 189 USPQ 143, 147 (CCPA 1976).
Following the guidelines of a rejection under this ground of rejection, the examiner sets forth
a rejection of claims 36 and 38-42 at page 6 of the examiner’s answer, wherein the examiner asserts
that
Applicant is given Official Notice that the use of solenoids as actuators for the
movement of dolls and figures is well known in the art and it would have been
obvious . . . to connect two-phase solenoids as the actuators in the invention of Tong
in order to reduce the complexity and cost of the actuators and the invention.
Appellant argues (brief at page 14 and 15) that each of these claims recites an actuator
having only two phases and an actuation-controlled means operable by a digital signal, which are
not taught nor suggested by Tong. Appellant further argues (brief at page 19) that
In contrast thereto, TONG employs conventional rotary D.C. motors for actuating
the movable portions of the doll. TONG does not teach or suggest employing an
actuation device of the type having two (2) operation phases concurrent with the
digital binary codes “1" and “0", and fails to disclose an animated talking toy of the
type having binary actuation arrangement feasible for digital operation and control.
The examiner responds (answer at page 12) by reiterating the position stated in the final
rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007